F 390 
. W88 




Class rEiaii 



SPEECH 



OF 



MR. WOODBURY, OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 

IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, 
On the Treaty for the Rearoiexation of Texas to the United States. 

Delivered in the Senate of the United States, June 4, 1844. 



Mr. WOODBURY said: 

If I understand the substance of all the objections 
to the ratification of the present treaty, whetiier ex- 
pressed in resolutions or debate, it is this: 

First, that the government of the United States 
■does not posses the constitutional right- or power to 
purchase Texas, and admit her people into the 
Union. Next, that the present government of Tex- 
as alone has not the right or competency to make 
such a cession of her territory and sovereignty. 
And, finally, that it is not our duty at present to 
complete the cession, even were the right on both 
sides clear. 

This soems to me to be the whole case, when 
stripped of details and perplexing appendages. I 
shall examine these positions separately, and I 
trust with that fairness and dispassionate spirit 
.•which belong to a question so momentous to our 
own country, as well as a sister republic — a ques- 
tion, too, on which I speak as the organ of no ad- 
niinistration or party, but above and beyond them 
all, as an independent senator, of an independent 
State, and trying to regard her interests, and those 
^f the whole Union, in the long vista of the future, 
1:0 less than at the present moment. 

Some deny the constitutional power to purchase 
.any territory situated without our original limits; 
■while others deny not only that, but Uie power, 
at any tunc, to adinit such territory and inhabitants 
into the Union as States. 

Both of these powers have been exerci.sed in the 
cases of buying Louisiana and the Floridas, and af- 
terwards of admitting the three States of Louisiana, 
Arkansas, and Missouri, carved out of the former 
territory. They have, therefore, long been regard- 
■ed as settled questions, till the opposition to them in 
.this chamber, by tlie senators from New Jersey, 
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, [Messrs. Mil- 
ler, Choate, and Simmons,] has burst forth with 
such vehemence, that it may be well to advert to a 
few principles and authorities in their support. 

I do this the more readily, as the pretence that 
such a purchase and admission into the Union are 
wnconstitutional, is the only plausible justification 
for the otherwise treacherous or fanatical cry of 



DisirxiuN, which so often deafens our ears. That 
cry originated on an occasion almost identical with 
this, when the act for admitting Louisiana as a State, 
in 1811, was pending. 

In the debate on that occasion, a member from 
Massachusetts overflowed with such threats, till he 
was called to order for his violence, and escaped 
censure on an appeal from the Speaker's decision 
against him, only from a conviction in some of his 
opponents, that his threats would prove harmless. 
It was then the memorable saying was first uttered, 
which is now ringing again in our ears from the 
same class of politicians and from the same State, 
but with Ipse point and elegance iu these degenerate 
days. Mr. Quincy said: 

"If this bill passes, it is my delibci. opinion that it is 
virtually a dissolution of the Union— that it will free the 
States from their moral obligations; ami that, as it will then 
be the right of all, so it will be the duty of .some, definitely 
to prepare for separation— amicably if they can, forcibly if 
they must."— (See National Intelligencer Jan. 19, 1319, and 
Lambert on Rules, 74th page.)' 

It is true that the madness of faction can threaten 
distmion on the smallest, as well as greatest occa- 
sions, and may at times venture on it, unless deter- 
red by a dread of the halter; but it is equally true 
that there is no more real occasion or justification 
for it now, than there was when so much vaporing 
" oflf harmlessly in 1803 and 1811 about Lou- 



''The democratic pafty, notwithstanding, passed the 
bill by a vote of 77 yeSs to 3i3 nays. The former inclu- 
ded those sterling republicans— the Crawfords, Macons 
Calhouns, Bacons, Cutts, Fiskes, and even Clays and Roots- 
while the latter were made up of the Quincys and Whea- 
tous, and the Hales and Wilsons, who then stood at the 
head of the federalism of the East. The original treaty- 
had been ratified in a like manner by 27 republican yeas 
and 7 federal nays. How is the divisio.n of opinion on this 
subject now? At a %vhig anti-annexation meeting in Worces- 
ter, Massachusetts, a re.solution was recently adopted "to 
separate the free States from the others if annexation pre- 
vailed." And ten members of the House of Representatives 
headed by Messrs. Adams, Giddings, and Slade, issued 
a manifesto, last year, declaring that annexation "would be j 
identical with dissolution of the Union."— (See it in Niles's 
Register, 17.5th page, for May 13th 1843.) 

The Boston Times of the 1st inst , which arrived herethi.t.' 
morning, says, likewise, "the abolitionists passed a vota^^ 
last evening to dissolve the Union." 



,D' 



isituia, or than there was in liie purchase of Florida 
in 1819, or the admission of Missouri in 1822. If 
those purchases and admissions were constitutional, 
so are these: and in order to allay the renewed ex- 
citement on this point, (honest with many, I have 
no doubt,) the patience of the Senate is asked a few 
minutes. 

The words of the .3d section, article 4th of the 
constitution, are: "New States may be admitted hy 
the Congress into the Union." This is the whole 
that bears on the point now under consideration, and 
is broad and explicit enough to cover all cases 
deemed expedient and proper by Congress, whether 
situated without or within our original limits. 1 
admit that Mr. Jefferson, not having been a mem- 
ber of the convention which framed the constitution, 
did at first consider it doubtful v;hether, Ijy con- 
struction, this power ought not to be confined to 
States witliin our former limits; and he even went so 
far as to have a clause for the amendment of the 
constitution prepared, "to cover the case of Louisi- 
ana. But, after full examination, and conferences 
with others, it is inferable as cei-tain that he became 
convinced such an amendment was unnecessary, as 
it was abandoned, and he not only completed the 
treaty, but signed the act of Congress establishing 
territorial government over what had been pur- 
chased; and Mr. Madison, with his republican co- 
adjutors in 1811, became convinced that the power, 
now, and then, questioned, clearly existed, or they 
never could have supported the act for the admis- 
sion of Louisiana as a State. In truth, so fully had 
their opponents become of a like opinion on this 
point, that the admission neither of Missouri nor 
Arkansas was resisted on this account; and the pur- 
chase of Florida in 1819 was approved as constitu- 
tional by every senator, federalist or republican. 

The reasons for a change in opi)iion with some 
undoubtedly were, that the words in which the 
power was conveyed to Congress were uueiiuivocal 
and explicit in favor of its widest scope — that they 
had been made more so in the progress of the con- 
stitution through the convention; and that this was 
known to have been done so not only to include one 
foreign territory, in the case of Canada, which had 
been specially provided for in the articles of the old 
confederation, but to embrace all the contiguous 
British, or Spanish, or vacant regions whose future 
union with us might afterwards be mutually desira- 
ble. 

The framers of the constitution were men who 
looked deep into the future, and had no design to 
strip themselves of any high national powers or 
destinies. 

When it was objected by some, in debate in 1811, 
that, on this construction. States might be admitted, 
not only contiguous, but in the West Indies, South 
America, and even Europe, the reply seemed sensi- 
ble and pertinent, that on the American theory of 
self government, no reason existed why we should 
not be allowed to admit any State that would con- 
form to our representative s^^ stem,. and whose union 
with us should, by the majority of both countri< s, 
or the proper authorities, be considered mutually 
advantageous, and that we might well wish to extend 
the blessings of our government as widely as prac- 
ticable. 

So far as convenient and beneficial, the whole 
world may thus become partners, says Mansfield's 
Political Grammar, p. 143 and 144. This ex- 
tended construction of the power has proved a sala- 
.-iary one.— (Siory's Constitiuijnal Class Book, p. 



96.) It is settled beyond practical doubt.— (Duer"s 
Outlines of Constitutional Jurisprudence, p. 166.) 

Such is the view in Tucker's Blackslone, Ap. v. 
1, p. 278. And the Federalist itself looked to the 
clause for admitting new States generally <s design- 
ed to include foreign territories adjoining us. (See 
43d No.) 

So Mr. Macon said in the debate as to Louisiana, 
that the constitution was designedly made broad, so 
as to admit such a foreign territory and government 
as Canada, when agreeable to both; because the ter- 
ritory and people within our limits were already 
within the Union, and entitled to be, under old com- 
pacts, treaties, and cessions. 

Such also was the view of Mr. Jefferson, under 
the confederation, (v. 1, Life ,p. 398.) 

Indeed, how could wars be prosecuted for wrongs 
inflicted, and just indemnity obtained, if any con- 
quests of territory made could not be held- They can 
be and become apart of the nation. — (1 Feters's R. 
p. 542.) And if so, are we to treat them in due time, 
and when fit, as equals and component parts of the 
Union.' or exhibit the shameful injustice as well 
as impolicy of keeping them in a disfiarchised and 
humiliating servitude.' 

In 3 Story on Con. 193, it is laid down that "the 
general government possesses the right to acquire 
territory by conquest or by treaty." Again, 190-1: 
"The constitutionality of the two former acquisitions, 
(Louisiana and Florida,) though formerly much 
questioned, is now considered settled beyond any 
practical doubt." 

it was objected in 1803, that, "under the form 
of a cession, we may become united to a more pow- 
erful neighbor or rival, and be involved in European 
or other foreign interests and contests to an inter- 
minable extent. — (p. 157.) 

But the reply was, that "the right to acquire terri- 
tory is an incident to sovereignty." — (p. 159.) 

Every government that ever yet existed possesses 
a competency to add to its territory. It ceases to 
have the functions of an independent nation, if it can- 
not, by treaty or discovery, obtain new boundaries 
for convenience, ornew lands for culture, or new ports 
for commerce; and, as before suggested, it is stripped 
of the national function of acquiring territory, when 
assailed by unjust war, and holding it eitlier for in- 
demnity, or profit, or security. And if sve can acquire 
it, reason, as well as the words of the constitutioi), 
requires us, in due time, to make Stales out of it, 
and admit them into the Union. — (160.) Story says, 
in a note to this page, that the Hartford convention 
proposed to prevent such admission, unless by a 
vote of two-thirds of both houses; and by a report in 
that body, indirectly denied the authority to admit 
States or any territory without our original limits. 
But this doctrine has slept with that convention 
since, it is believed, till revived by Mr. Adams in 
i his Texas speech, in 1838, in Congress, and his po- 
I litical address in JNew York in 1839. 

How little ground exists for such a doctiine, even 
in the opi ^'on of th greatest constitutional lawyer 
i of his own party, may be seen by looking to 3d 
Story, pages IGO, 161. 

"Sue. 12S.3. The more recent acquisition of Florida, 
which has been universally approved, or acquiesced in by 
all the States, can be maintained only on the same princi- 
ple, and furnishes a striking illustration of the truth, 
I that constitutions of government require a liberal con- 
1 struction to eflcct their objects; and that a narrow- inter- 
1 pretation of their powers, however it may suit the views of 
I speculative philosojihers, or the accidental interests of po- 
litical parties, is iucompatable with the permaaeut interest 



of the State, and •subversive of The grrat oids of sll govern- 
ment, the safety and independence of the people." 

This construclioii does not, ss tlie senator from 
New Jersey argues, prevent the hlesdngr, <f lihertij 
from being enjoyed liy the posterity of our fathers 
as liiey designed. IJeeaiise tiiere is enough at tjie, 
bounteous (able for all that posterity and any n(^v 
associates. All such can participate v, nli i;ii m m 
that freedom as they do in the air, w; ti i. .; 
without loss to either, and without (_;- ii si \ ,,: ,< 
and misanthropy. 

In truth, our whole history rerves to demonstrate 
the wisdom, on general as well as constitutional 
priiiciples, of expanding our limits with the vast 
increase of our population and wealth. Such expan- 
sion prevents many of the evils of too dense a popu- 
lation, and secures the p-.-edor.inianco of I'le s-afe, vir- 
tuous and republican pursuit of agi iculture. his said 
that we have a Sparta, and let us adurn it. But is 
there never to be an escape f/om the infant shell? 
nor any enlargement of the shell itself to suit the 
growth of the animal within? Is our Sjiarta to be 
confined forever to a garden spot, or single planta- 
tion? a single city? ora few barren aci'cs, as in Greece, 
Avith iron only for money, black broth only for foi:>d, 
and our sons iavght stealing as an accomplishment — 
instead of spreading over half a continent, improv- 
ing the sciences and the whole arts of civilized world, 
covering remotest oceans with our commerce, and 
lielping to spread abroad and at home superior edu- 
cation and a purer religion? Thank God! the scales 



fell from our eyes on this subject more than a quarter 
of a century ago, when Louisiana was purchased; 
and instead of trying to replace them, if we are able 
to preserve Oregon — gained both by discovery and 
purchase — and to recover Texas; we can, in another 
half century, not only again, as has been done, 
double our States, and nearly quadru]jle our wealth, 
numbers and power, but adorn, improve, and secure 
forever all the fair inheritance with which we are 
blessed. 

When we look to analogies abroad of cases of 
whole territories and governments being ceded and 
annexed to other governments, whether monarchies 
or republican confederacies, they cluster thickly. 

France heiself is made up of a union of what Vv-as 
once different kingdoms; so of Spain; so of Great 
Britain; so of Germany. Indeed, England not only 
reannexed Wales — the favorite find just term now — 
but admitted Scotland as well as Ireland into a 
union with her, including government aiid the 
whole t(»rritory. The v/ord reannexed, as now applied, 
is as old as Elackstone, v/ho says: ^^The territnry of 
Wales being then entirchj reannexed (by a kind of feu- 
dal resumption) to the dominion of the crown of 
England."— (Vol 1, 94 p ) 

But in confederacies, Switzerland has added and 
rejected various seperate cantonments, with their 
whole government and territory; so of Holland or 
the Netlierlands; and so of the Mexican confedera- 
cy itself, now including one State formerly attached 
to Guatemala; so of Colombia; so of Buenos 
Ayres; sometimes adding new States, both territory 
and government, and sometimes amicably or violent- 
ly separating. Indeed, several of tlie old thirteen 
colonies, now States, were originally obtained by 
England by treaties of cession. 

In the Mexican constitution, (See 2 Kennedy, 
427,) the power of their Congress is no broader 
than ours: It is to admit new States to the federal 
union or territories, incorporating them in the nation; 



and under it one has been admitted, which never 
before belonged in any sense to Mexico. 

Hence, whether we look to tlie words of the con- 
stitution, or to the practice under it, or to the anal- 
ogies of other governments, whether American or 
European, the constitutional right to aimex i.3 
undoubted. 

All wliich tlie constitution requires to admit 
I Statef-, is the assent of Congress. Whether a treaty 
IS also necessary to annex a territory seems que.?- 
tionable, unless it is regarded as done by a contract 
with a foreign power, which is usually commenced 
in the form of a treaty,' and the terms thus settled 
with more convenience in the first instance. But 
there can be litde doubt that, while the assent of 
Congress is alone sufficient, and is alone necessary 
by our constitution to admit a new State, it is proper 
to be given after a territory is bought by treaty, to 
the i-iayments to be made under it, and to the organi- 
zaiicii (if its new government and relations; and, if 
s>i ■_;i\' ;i v.itliouta treaty, may answer every object 
(if icasciii and principle involved. 

IjiU the idea that, in these cases under our constitu- 
tion, it is necessary to have the assent of each State 
in the Union as a separate Slate, or the people of 
each, (and indeed, as Mr. Adams supposed in 1804, 
of conventions in each State, — 4 Elliott's Debates,) 
except as both are represented in Congress, and then 
only a majority of their representatives in each 
branch to a law, or of two-thirds of the Senate to a 
treaty is not justified either by any language or pre- 
cedent. No dificrent assent than this last'was ask- 
ed in 1803, or 1811, or 1S19, or any other occasioa 
whatever. And the only analogy in support of it 
seems to be a practice in Holland to require the as- 
sent of the States separately to the admission of new- 
States — when in truth the practice there originated 
in an express clause in the confederation to that ef- 
fect. (Sec it in 2d Davics' Ilittorv of Holland, 76 
P"ge.) 

So another express clause in the old confederation 
required the assent of nine States out of thirteen in 
certain cases. When annexation was declined in 
18.37, it was on other grounds; and this point is ex- 
plicitly stated by Mr." Van Burcii, who was then 
President, to be no objection. In a constitutional 
point of view, the opposition "of a considerable and re- 
spectable portion of the convnumtij,''' as others argue, 
cannot rightfully defeat annexation, if there be a 
majority of Congress in t';ivor of the measure; 
though such an opposition, an(.I their reasons, would 
be entitled to respectl'id cmsidrration, as in all other 
controverted cases. I admit, that the wishes of the 
people should possess much inHuence, and it is desi- 
rable to know them betbre action on important meas- 
ures; but they are not, by the constitution, required 
to be first consulted before Congress or the treatyf 
making power can negotiate for territory. It was 
never dreamed of in the purchase of Louisiana and 
Florida, nor in the former attempts to purchase Texas 
in 1825, 1829, and 1835. 

But, if it were otherwise, the senator from Mis- 
souri admits that ten or twelve millions out of fif- 
teen of our free population are in favor of the annex- 
ation. A majority of more than two-thirds here, 
and of all the voters in Texas but 93, as stated by 
their commissioners, would then seem quite enough 
of the people themselves in both countries to satisfy 
the most fastidious. 

How much some gentleman are likely to obtain 
by the advice of the people before they act — however 
it ia wished — can be ascertained from the extraordi- 



nary resolution, to throw 20,000 copies of the treaty 
and correspondence before the public, because "tite 
will of the people ought to be consulted on them;" and 
yet refusing to wait a reasonable time to learn that 
will; and proceeding — the very next day, before a 
single copy was printed for the people — to discuss 
and decide on the measure. 

On motion by Mr. Walker, to amend the amend- 
ment proposed by Mr. Crittenden, by adding at 
the end thereof, the following: and that a reasonable 
time should be given to hear from the people after this 
pvhlicalion before the final decisioii of the Senate upon 
the treaty — 

It was determined in the negative — yeas 15, nays 
28. 

Having endeavored to show our constitutional right 
to purchase tlie territory of Texas, and to unite its peo- 
ple in our government, and having thus tried to remove 
the great obstacle to the ratification, which blocks 
up the threshhold of our inquiries, I shall consider 
the next point, which is the right of Texas to make 
the cession, and enter into the Union. The objec- 
tion to the form of doing this business on both sides 
I will examine hereafter — as I am at present looking 
merely to the great principles involved in the au- 
thority to take and to cede. 

It is contended by several who oppose the treaty, 
that Texas is not in a competent condition to make 
this cession without the assent of Mexico or Spain — 
some former master or tyraimical step-mother. 
Spain, it is believed, is pretty well silenced on this 
point by the great lapse of time since she lias made 
any war on the territory of Texas, and any claim to 
govern her; or she is silenced by her recognition of 
the independence of all her American provinces. 
But how is it with Mexico? On what rest her 
claims to be consulted before the cession, so far as 
regards the power and capacity of Texas? 

In the first place, the right of Mexico to Texas 
as ever having been an integral portion of her 
territory, and much less a portion of it since the 
independence of Mexico herself was acknowledged 
by Spain, is very questionable. 

According to the opinions of such jurists and 
diplomatists as Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe; 
of Livingston, Clay, and Adams, (in 1818,) Texas 
was within the limits of Louisiana, when bought 
by us in 1803, as clearly "as the island of New 
Orleans." I shall not fatigue the Senate with de- 
tails on this. But Texas had been discovered, and 
settled by the French in JG85, five years previous to 
any Spanish settlement. — (Marbois' Hist, of Lou- 
isiana, 107.) It had been viewed as "the cradle of 
Louisiana." — (4 Jeff. Life, 60.) It was in the grant 
by Louis to Crozat, in 1712.— (1 Laws, 439.) After 
ceded to Spain, in 1761, its boundaries became un- 
important; but when retroceded to, and occupied 
by, France in 1800, she claimed as formerly, and 
delivered it to us by her officers in 1804, as extend- 
ing west to the Rio del Norte. It was boasted ):)y 
Don Onis, the Spanish minister, who negotiated the 
treaty of 1819, after his return, that jjy his ability 
and tact it had been procured from us. Mr. Forsyth 
to Adams, July 30, 1820, says that Don Onis "en- 
deavors to show that the treaty of cession of Flor- 
ida ought to be considered as a treaty of exchange 
of Florida for Texas, a country more extensive, 
fertile, and valuable." The Spanish government it- 
self seems lo have instructed their mijiister tliat we 
might retain it, if no better terms could be pro- 
cured. — (See Erving's Expose.) And Mr. Galla- 
tin, after laborious reseai-ch, before 1810, became 



convinced the territory was ours; and our posts 
had therefore, as early as 1806, been extended be- 
yond the Sabine to Nacogdoches, one of the re- 
motest settlements of much size. — ( 1 Laws, 437.) And • 
Galveston itself was temporarily occupied by us in 
1817.— (4 State Papers, 297. See more fully on this, 
Marbois' History of Louisiana. 4 State Papers. 
4 Jeff. Life, 60. 2 Foot's History of Texas, 397, 
376: 1 Do. 194. 2 Kennedy, 445. 'l Clay's Speech- 
es, 82 and 93.) 

Under what pretence, then, can Mexico claim it' 
In 1819 we cetled it to Spain, not Mexico; and if, 
as some incorrectly maintain, Mexico was then rev- 
olutionised, she of course got nothing by this sub- 
sequent cession to Spain rather than herself. But 
if, as was the truth, Mexico never became independ- 
ent of Spain, even by declaration, till February 24, 
1821, though before torn by intestine divisions, all 
avowing loyalty to Spain, she claimed her inde- 
pendence only two days after the treaty of 1819 
was finally ratified by us, and before Spain was no- 
tified thereof, or had taken possession of the terri- 
tory, or had annexed it to Mexico; and months be- 
fore Mexico got possession of the government of 
the country. 

This is one view of the weakness of the claim of 
Mexico. Another is, that Spain had previously 
made claim to Texas; and, "under the Spanish gov- 
ernment, Texas was a separate and distinct province. 
As such, it had a separate and distinct local organ- 
ization." — (See 1 Foot's History of Texas, p. 62.) 
When, therefore, her people, between 1821 and 
1824, revolted from Old Spain, and declared them- 
selves independent, and formed a new constitution 
and political organization, whether always before 
belonging to Spain or given to her by our cession in 
1819, they acted as a separate, free, sovereign, and 
independent state, as much as did New Hampshire 
or South Carolina in 1776. Then, 15,000 people, 
probably, (besides Indians,) occupied her territory. 
As such, she continued in a revolutionary condition 
till, Iturbide being shot, she joined the Mexican con- 
federacy with Coahuila, in 1824; and, with her, as a 
separate independent state, continued in the confed- 
eration under certain specified terms till 1834 and 
1835; though she wished a separate state govern- 
ment in 1832, having, in October of that year, held a 
separate convention from Coahuila, to form a 
separate constitution, and blocked one out; and sent 
Austin with it and a petition to Mexico, setting 
forth the reasons for separation. — (2 Kennedy, 19 to 
22.) He proved unsuccessful, and was im poisoned; 
and, in 1834 and '35, when the confederated rights 
of Texas were violated by Santa Anna, her people 
oppressed, her state legislature abolished, and the 
confederacy dissolved, a consolidated government 
was erected on its ruins, October 5th, 1835, and she 
refused, as was her sovereign right, to enter into the 
new government. — (See the decree, 2 Kennedy, HI, 
89, 61.) She conthiued during 1835 to contend man- 
fully against the usurper, and to sustain her inde- 
pendent rights till the final victory of San Jacinto in 
April, (26th,) 1836, crowned her efforts. 

Her constitution — early as March 11th, 1827, and 
while in the confederacy with Mexico — used this 
emphatic language: Texas "is free and independent 
of the other United Mexican States, and of every 
other foreign power and dominion." — (See 2 Ken- 
nedy's H. 444 p. Ap.) And again: After stating 
that she has joined the confederacy fbr certain 
specified purposes, the constitution declares that, foe 



all others, Texas "retains its liberty, independence, 
and sovereignty." 

What justifiable pretence, then, lias there been 
since for Mexico to attempt to dragoon a separate 
and independent state into a new form of govern- 
ment, or into subjection to her tyranny? What 
right of Mexico has she violated? The wrong is on 
the otlier side; and it is Mexico, to whom she owes 
neither duties nor allegiance, that is usurping a con- 
trol over her affairs not justifiable either by sound 
principles of constitutional law, or the great axioms 
on which the i-ight of our own States and their peo- 
ple rest. 

Let it be remembered, also, that Texas, beside 
being an independent sovereign State ever since 
the original revolution in 1821, and the first Mexi- 
can constitution of 1824, iiad entirely separated 
from the confederacy, when it was dissolved in 
1835, as she had a right to, one to two years before 
tlie independence of Mexico herself was acknow- 
ledged by Spain in December, 1836. 

Texas had attempted independence, and half a 
year after, at San Jacinto, resisted Mexican occupa- 
tion and control; and hence may not have been in- 
cluded in Spain's recognition of Mexico alone. 

Bring these facts home to our own system of 
government. Look at the analogies and rights. Read 
the eloquent and indignant remonstrances of Texas 
against the assumed authority over her,' in her new 
declaration of independence, and new constitution 
in 1836, and our hearts cannot but burn within us 
at the worse than British dictation and oppression 
which are claimed and attempted to be exercised 
over her: and if cause of just war exists at all, it 
is on the part of Texas, and against Mexico, 
rather than the reverse. 

Bin if any consider this v'^wofihc crise ns in 
some respects not tenable, we iiivilc tlitir ,!ii(iiiinri 
to another aspect of the subject, \\liii'ii siiriii;tlirii.s 
jTiuch the right of Texas to make thi.s cession, and 
be received into the Union, and enjoy all its bene- 
fits, as proposed by this treaty. 

When we purchased Texas within the limits of 
Louisiana in 1803, we engaged, by treaty with 
France, to perform the solemn duties set out in the 
3d article, 1st Laws, p. 136. 

'The ir.hobitants of the ceded territory shall be incorpo- 
rated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as scon 
aspossiHe, accnidiof/ tn tlie principles ofthe federal constitu- 
tion, to all T.' 1 1-; :- i/ .Mifages, and immunities of citi 
zensoftUc' i- -i ;i..d.intl;c mean lime, they shall 

be maintaiii. .i . -jm i....i. f ,! in tlie fiee enjoyment of their 
liberty, preiii-ii\ . .mil tin- religion wliich tiiey profess." 

Now if any ofthe people of Texas reside on ter- 
ritory then within the boundaries of Louisiana, this 
obligation remains in full force, unless France has 
released us from it, or those people have relinquish- 
ed it, and do not now desire its fulfilment. 

I concede that v.-e may have done acts which bar 
or estop us, both morally and politically, from ma- 
king any farther rightful claim over tliem against 
their consent; but have they ever become constitu- 
tionally divested of their right under that treaty pro- 
vision? 

I have already proved that the territory of Texas 
v/as geographically within the limits of Louisiana, 
and whatever may be her present true boundaries, it 
is well known that the people of Texas, now ask- 
ing admission, reside on that part of iter territory 
conceded by all not to be west or north of her old 
limits. 

The obligation imposed on us in 1803, then — how 
hate we become exonerated from it' In no way, I 



apprehend, unless by the treaty made with Spain in 
1819, ceding all our ten-itory west of the Sabine, and 
thus ceding away Texas herself. To understand 
the precise character of that treaty, it is necessary to 
notice that it was not, as many have hastily sup- 
posed, a treaty merely defining, with particularity, 
limits before general and uncertain, between contigu- 
ous nations. 

But, turning to the third article, (6 Laws, 616,) it 
will be seen that, after describinga line north from the 
mouth of the Sabine, and then northwest and west 
to the South sea, "the United States hereby CEDE 
to his Catholic Majesty, and RENOUNCE forev- 
er, all their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the 
territories lying west and south of the above-de- 
scribed line; and, in like manner, his Catholic Ma- 
jesty cedes to the said United States all his rights, 
claims, and pretensions to any territories east and 
north ofthe said line; and for himself, his heirs, and 
successors, renounces all claims to the said territo- 
ries forever." 

Besides fixing some boundaries before doubtful, 
the treaty of 1819 was thus manifestly one of ces- 
sion; as much so, on our part, of Texas, as, on 
the part of Spain, of the Floridas, the same 
language being used in both cases. The territory 
then being very large, and its inhabitants sev- 
eral thousands, it was neither constitutional 
nor right to cede them away, and deprive them 
of their claims to be admitted into our Union und<a' 
the Louisiana treaty, without first asking and obtaiii- 
ing tlieir consent. Neither of these was done; 
and whatever acts they have since passed, under a 
supposition that their claim had by us been legally 
extinguished, are not to injure or debar them in fo- 
rum conscientkv. — in sound morals or just principles 
— from now requesting, as they virtually do by this 
treaty, a reunion and admission to all the privileges 
before stipulated to be allowed them. These posi- 
tions are so important as to justify some further 
proofs that the treaty of 1819 was then regarded on 
both sides as one of cession. The message of Mr. 
Monroe, in December, 1819, says "we had ceded val- 
uable t*e»TJicri/;" and Mr. Clay, in 1820, declares that v/e 
unadvisably ceded the country west ofthe Sabine to 
the Rio Del Norte. So, Mr. Adams, before the ratifi- 
cations were completed, (May 3d, 1820, 4 State Pa- 
pers, 684,) says ofthe United States, "their right of 
territory was, and yet is, to the Rio del Norte;" and 
(in February, 1821,) "these concessions on the part 
of the United States were great; and the treaty 
was a treaty of '■'■mutual cessions;'''' (4 State Papers 
703;) in the words of Don Onis, it was a treaty of ex- 
CHAKGE of Florida for Texas — a country more ex- 
tensive, fertile, and valuable. 

Tjte propriety of that exchange or cession is a 
very different question; and however proper most 
of it may, as early as 1806, have seemed justifiable 
to one House of Congress, and the whole of it ad- 
visable to all of the other House, and the President, 
in 1819, yet with the knowledge we now possess of 
the value of Texas, and the laiid ceded on the 
sources ofthe Red river and the Arkansas, as well as 
of the better terms which might probably have 
been procured of Spain," the cession is much to be 
regretted. 

But before complaining too severely of those 
who participated in the making of the treaty, and 
in its ratification, by having obliged us not only to 
pay five millions of dollars for Florida — a country 
that has been called mere sand banks and swamps — 
but to cede the whole of Texas, larger and richer 



6 



than three Floridas, it may be well to advert to one 
or two considerations. The title of what we ceded 
was controverted, however improperly; but that of 
what we obtained was uncontro verted. The extent 
and character of Texas were then little known or 
appreciated; while the importance of tli£ possession 
of Florida by us, with a view to the free naviga- 
tion of the Mobile and Apalachicola was thoroughly 
understood, as well as its benefits to the rich coun- 
tries above, of having American dcjiots and out- 
lets for their produce near the ocean, and additional 
guards to the domestic tranquillity of the South, ar.d 
the security of her peculiar pi'operty and institutions. 
These circumstances induced Mr. Jefferson, as 
early as the attempt to buy Louisiana, to seek to 
obtain the Floridas also. — (4 State Papers, 738 — 9.) 

It is not a little curious that, in the original in- 
btructions, they extended only to the buying of that 
part of Louisiana consisting of the island of New 
Orleans, or all east of the Mississipjii, and including, 
at the same time, the Floridas; but neither Texas 
nor anything else west of .the Mississippi. — (See 
Doc. 102, 19th Cong., 1st session, to tlie Senate, 
dated 20lh May, 1824. The following immbers re- 
fer to letters in that document: Nos. 4C2, 460, 466, 
463,47], and 476. See also 2 State Papers, pages 
537,541, 516,520, and 529.) 

The value put there on the different objects of 
purchase is significant, as for New Orleans alone 
the minister was to give three-fourths of the whole 
sum, and for the Floridas the other fourth; but only 
half as much for East as for Vv^est Florida, if ob- 
taining but one of them. — (See page 743, Doc. 102.) 
At one time we even proposed to guaranty to Spain 
the west side of the Mississippi, (Madison to 
Pinckney, May 11th, 1802, No. 46i!, as above,) 
should she cede to the east side. 

The cession of the whole province of Louisiana 
was rather a proposal from Bonaparte than ours;i 
fearing lest, in an approaching war with England, 
she might seize the rest; and urging, as a reason 
for it, that the rest, if not v, anted iDy us, could be 
sold by us to some other power. — (2 State Papers, 
552, Livingston to Madison, No. 476, in document 
above.) How fully and authentically does this fact 
repel all the libellous imputations then and since 
made agaijist Mr. Jeflerson and us, for seeking 
Louisiana (including Texas) from ambition and the 
love of aggrandizement. But after Louisiana was 
obtained without Florida, the latter was still re- 
gai-ded as so essential, that, on a message by Mr. 
Jefferson of a confidential character, in January, 
1806, Congress itself, in secret session, matured a 
law appropriating $,2,000,000 to enable him to make 
the purchase; and the object of the law was con- 
cealed from foreign scrutiny and intrigue, by en- 
tithngit "An act to defray any extraordinary ex- 
pense which may be incurred in the foreign" inter- 
course between the United States and foreign na- 
tions." — (4 Laws, page 5, February 13, 1806.) 

In order to aid in that negotiation, the following 
memorable resolutions were passed in the House of 
Representatives, in secret session, and are, in truth, 
1 apprehend, the whole foundation of the subse- 
quent cession of Texas in 1819, whose demerits 
have been the object of so much animadversion. 
There had been instructions before to make the 
Colorado the western boundary, if every difficulty 
could thus be adjusted with Spain, and the Floridas' 
obtained; but an absolute re fu .sal to cede any part' 
of Texas or Louisiana cast of the Colorado. — (See 
fully on this 2 Stale Papers, pages 626 to 666, con- 



tainmg letters from July, 1803, to May, 1805, to 
and from our ministers at Madrid.) 

Here are the resolutions: 

"licsnlred, That dollars be aiipropriated t;y law to- 
wards delraj ing the e.xpenses w hich may be incurred in 
the jmrchase ol the .S[iani>h territories lying on the Atlantic 
ocean ;i;i.l 'iiill nl Mexico, and eastward of the Mifsissippi, 
to l)e 1^ I - , , ,11, \ in the treasnry not otherwise 
ajipn , :. ,1 under the direction of the 

I'resi - -.who shall have authority, if 

ncccs..:-.. ;u I ;■.,, t.iu .-uiisuni, or any part thereof, in 
behalf of the Ljutod States, at a rate of interest not exceed- 
ing six per centum per annum, redeemable at will; and 
shall cause an account thereof to be laid before Congress as 
soon as may be. 

"Rcsol: eii, 1 hat an exchange of territory between the 
United States and Sjiain is deemed by this House to be the 
most advantageous mO('e of settleiiieiit of existing differ- 
ences respeclilr; !'■ ;-'■•.■..!' :li. T ..I'.l States and the 

court of Mai'uiM i- , ■ :,. .i , 'ween the two 

goveinmentr- ., ' : ■ i, ■ •, i,, i, ample barrier 

on the side of M -.i' , i,:' -it:,- 1 ;;.•, i S\.:\ulie countries 
u-nfered inj the iV//s,s,',,,-:/;:n/, and to the eastv.ard of it, will 
meet the "approbation of of this House " — (See House jour- 
nal for January 14, 1306, appendix, pages 437 and 458 ) 

The negotiation was at once renewed, with a 
view to buy the Floridas, or get them in exchange, 
on tho.se or better terms. — (See 3 State Papers, 
pages 539 and 540, March 13, 1806, Madison to 
Bowdoin.) 

In truth, so vital to self-presservation and peace 
was the possession of them regarded, not only in 
1806, but .in 1811, that the forcible occupa- 
tion of it in the latter year was authorized By 
Congress, as will soon be more fully explained. 
And again in 1820, Mr. Monroe advised another 
forcible occupation if Spain longer refused to rati- 
fy the treaty of cession in 1819, which the Sen- 
ate had already ratified unanimously. After this 
retrospect, and much more that need not now be 
detailed, I can readily conceive that, not only in 
1806, but in 1819, when the extent and value of 
Texas were less known than now, and v.-hen the 
Floridas were so much nearer, some of the old and 
v.'ell-settled States and their possession so highly 
appreciated on other accounts than their soil — that 
such a resolution could be easier passed by Con- 
gress, and easier complied with by the executive, 
than now. 

In the then infancy of the republic, and the com- 
parative ignorance of the sources of some of the 
tributaries of the Mississippi, and the vast western 
extent of Louisiana, the west side of that river was 
much lower appi'eciated that it deserved; and only 
one State was contemplated to be established on 
that side, and a large reserved territory to be held 
for the Indians.— (4 Jefl:'. Life, 51.) 

But we had harldly parted with Texas before the 
explorations and enterprise of our people, under the 
blessings of peace, unfolded more as to the extent 
and fertility of that region, and the remote sources 
of many of our beautiful rivers; and it was soon 
discovered that we had failed to retain even what 
Congress had originally intended in the resolution 
should not be ceded — that is, all the land on all the 
tributaries of the Mississippi. 

A large and valuable tract on the Red and Ar- 
kansas rivers was parted with, either through want 
of correct geographical information, or other causes 
now unknown, and conflicting with the resolution. 

Hence in a few moiuhs inquiries arose in Con- 
gress whether more had not been ceded than was 
proper; and a resolution was offered by Dr. Floyd 
to ascertain if Spain hari not empowered hermmister 
to go farther west with the line, and if that fact was 
not known to the Secretary of State. — (Journal of 



House of Representatives, January 27, 1820, p. 
176-7.) 

Hence, too, as soon as April, 1820, Mr. Clay of- 
fered tlie resolutions now in my hands, calling in 
question the legality of the cession, as well as its ex- 
pediency. I will read the first one: 

'■Reaolrcd, That tlu; constitution of the United States 
vests in Congress the power to dispose of the territory be- 
longing to them; and that no treaty purporting to alieiiate 
Huy part thereof, is valid without the concurrence of Con- 
gress." 

Hence, not only were efforts made by him 
and Mr. Adams, as early as 1825, to regain the 
whole country by a purchase from Mexico, and 
again in 1827, and again in 1829 by General Jack- 
son and Mr. Van Buren^ and thenceforward till 
1835, when Texas declared her independence, but 
in the Senate Mr. Preston, in 1838, offered another 
resolution, that tlie original cession in 1819 was "o/' 
evil precedent, and queslionahle constUutionaUty.'''' 

Without going further now into the hi.storical 
data connectrd with this branch of the inquiry, it 
must 1)0 evident tl-.at if the cession in 1S19 was void 
from any rau/', 'rrx:(s, liein- v.itliin the original 
limits of I;<Mii.-:;:ii;a, (ui;;l!i iiDw t;> I'l', under the stip- 
ulations of the Licaty u{ 1S03, proiected in her re- 
ligion, indulged in all tlie riglits of American citi- 
zens, and, as soon as possible, admitted into the 
Union on equal terms with all otlier new States. I 
do not go fir technicalities for or against this vicv/ 
of the subject; nor am I disposed to allov.- little 
special pleading, by estoppels or forms, to prevail 
against her moral claims on us — her substantial and 
legitimate rights. How are the merits, tlicnr France 
has never released us from tlie obligation, in tlii', 
treaty with lier, to admit into the Union all the territo- 
ry then witliin the limits of Louisiana. Texas has 
never been asked to release us. Could we, then, 
become exonerated by our own acts alone? Cer- 
tainly not, as we are but one party to the contract. 

No principle is better settled, tiian that a govern- 
ment of limited powers, having once acquired terri- 
tory, or admitted States into its Union, cannot sell 
portions of them to foreign powers. There is no 
such grant in the instrument — there is no such prac- 
tice. The disposal of the fee in wild land to indi- 
viduals and companies, is all the power m selling 
territories or States, which has been exercised in 
other cases, under this authority. But in no 
case has the jurisdiction or so\'ereignty over 
the people in territories and States, v/heiher few 
and small, or numerous and large, ever been 
exercised without that express assent of the parties 
in interest, previously obtained, which, on elemen- 
tary principles, can confer any right, or ratify 
any transaction. Here the territory was large enough 
to be consulted, and its population — it being, be- 
side Indians, quite 15,000, probably, in 1819. It 
had been 7,000 when Pike visited there twelve years 
previous. Hence, whde Vermont would be admit- 
ted into the Union by the assent of a majority in 
Congress, after 1789, yet we did not con.sider Con- 
gress, or the President and the Senate, competent to 
cede a part of the territory of Maine in 1842, with- 
out asking her previous consent. Hence, early as 
1793, Mr. Jefferson, and others of General "Wash- 
ington's cabinet, doubted whether any part of the 
northwestern territory could be ceded even to the 
Indians, and mucli less its jurisdiction to any foreign 
power. — (See 1 JciTerson's Life, page 409. 4 Jef- 
ferson's Life, page 479.) 

The old Congress of 1786, (4 Secret Journal, 
page 100,) held that the United States possessed no 



po^\er, by a treaty, to convey a part or parts of the 
territory of the United States west of the Allegha- 
nies; and Vattel, book 1, chapter 21, section 260, 
holds, that only the nation, or its representatives, 
' and not the prince, or treaty-making power, can 
I cede territory. And it seems well settled in Eng- 
land, that no part of the realm can be dismembered 
or alienated without the consent of Parliament, as 
we'll as of the King.— (Book 116, chapter 2, sec. 10.) 
Mr. Shefiiey, in debate, (National Intelligencer, Jan- 
uary 5, 1811,) pronrmiiced the opposite view, as to a 
part of a State, "a doctrine sjun-ned at by alL" 

Mr. Clay maintained, in 1820, that it could not be 
done without the assent of Oon'^ress; but the better 
opinion is that the territory or State ceded niust cou- 
se)it, and not Congre.-s alone. 

The cession, then, .irii.ii:) iiiisdirtion and soil in 
Texas, in 1819, wi:!..^:,! tii ■ jwr'.i.m.s consent of its 
actual inhabitants or t.iri.'.'i-ia.l government, was ir- 
regular and imperfect. Vy'hatever subsequent acts 
)night lie regarded as a technical acqtiiescence in the 
cession, it v/as still, in point of law, erroneous, and 
must be a departure Um: i freaty stipulations, unless 
we now, when re(|n;'si.d, a.iiait them to all the 
]3)-ivi!eges originally jironub^J. There can be no 
doubt, if these positions are well supported, that 
they are fully competent to ask our assent to the 
retrocession and reunion; and thus, without regard 
to forms, do in substance all which is necessary ©a 
their part to perfect the measure. But while contend- 
ing tor this in their behalf, on great principles of 
moral and political obligation, I would not do in- 
justice to any other power with whom we inadvert- 
ently made new and incompatilde engagements. 
Though those engagements are, according to Vat- 
tel, inoperative, the first treaty being valid over a 
subsequent one v.hich conilirts with it. yet any 
iiijuvy d'ine i)y nniiidling the subsequent ces- 
sion o\i'_>lit to be renii.iiicrated to the party sujfer- 
ing. But that party, whether Spain or Mexico, 
have now no cause of complaint, and sufler no loss 
by this construction; because, since that cession in 
1819, and while it remained (/f/«c^o m force, Spain, 
in DecemVier, 1836, rehnquished all her claims over 
Mexico, if not Texas; and the latter has been inde- 
]'.endent of Spain for more than twenty years, and 
for more than ten years has resisted the usurpations 
of Mexico over her rights as a separate and sove- 
reign State, and for eight years has declared and 
maiiitained her independence as to the whole v/orld. 

There will be then a great moral fitness and beau- 
ty in the disposition of fiuman affairs, if now, after 
the lapse of a whole generation, we should be able, 
by the reannexation of Texas, to meet the wishe.s 
of her people in being admitted to the blessings of 
our Union, and should, at the same time, fulfil our 
own previous treaty stipulations in their favor; and, 

ithout injury to any rights of others, should re- 
^ tin a territo 
sections, and 



gain a territory so vital to so many interests of alf 
sections, and so long and so devoutly sought for by- 
such a succession of statesmen and patriots, 



by 



The solemnity or inviolability of the treaty of 
1803, is quite as great as that of 1819 or 1828, or 
any other since, and its obligations on this subject 
are both prior and paramount. 

But, supposing that both these views are 
untenable; and, for the sake of argument, in- 
dulging a moment in the idea that Texas was not 
embraced within the hmits of Louisiana, or, if so, 
was legally ceded to Spain, and afterwards became 
an integral part of the Mexican empire : had she 
not, when the terms of her confederacy with that- 



8 



■government became wantonly violated, her citizens 
imprisoned, and her privileges outraged — had she 
not a right to assert and maintain her independence? 
"Would she not have been false to her American 
blood, not to have done it on the field of San Jacin- 
Jo, as well as down to the present moment? 

Among the long list of grievances and usurpations 
set out in the declaration of her independence, (Sen- 
<ite document, No. 415, June 23, 1836,) was this: 
that Mexico "has dissolved, by force of arms, the 
State Congress of Coahuila and Texas," as well as 
denied liberty of conscience, and committed piracies 
on her commerce. For such as these she made that 
declaration, and has since sustained it with the rifle 
and the bayonet. 

On the American system of politics, had she not 
a right to separate for such abuses and violations of 
duty on the part of Mexico? Listen to the doctrine- 
-which some seem to forget, but — which is laid down 
in our own declaration of independence on this sub 
ject, penned by Jefterson, and sanctioned by 
Franklin, Hancock, Adams, and their patriot coad- 
jutors: 

"When alongtraiuof abuses and usurpations, pursuing 
invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce 
Ihem (the people) under absolute despotism, it is tlieir right 
it is their duty, to throw oft' such government, and to pro- 
Tide new guards for their future security." 

What is the American system as adopted by my 
3fiative State, and most of the others in the Union? 

'The 'people of this State have the sole and exclusive 
right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and in- 
<]ependent State," kc. 

•■All government i.t I iL, I.: > n-i ...tes from thepeojile." 
"Whi-nevi-r the civi ' . ii.. _. ,< :,imentare perverted, or 
public lil'City m-ai.iii i cd, and all other modes 

of redress are incriLciu.l, i,.- | i uple may, and of right 
ought to, reform the old, or c.-^taldi-h a new government." — 
(See the New Hampshire constitution.) 

See also 2 Barkmaque, p. 128, stating that a 
people may, for a good cause, always revolt and 
change their government. 

Mr. Clay's speech, on the recognition of the in- 
dependence of South America, and Mr. Webster's 
on that of Greece, are full of these doctrines, how- 
ever heretical their views may be on some other 
Cjucstions. 

By this (the true American sj^stem of politics) 
man is regarded as a free agent, possessing a right 
to self-government. We hold that communities 
may not only change their form of polity, but di- 
vide and erect a[separate institution, when oppressed 
and driven, by a series of wrongs, into revolution 
and independence. Mankind, in our theory, do 
not hold their rights from kings or royal charters, 
or holy alliances, but from God; and far from its be- 
ing proper to sympathize with, and defend, op- 
pressive governments in reconquering revolted sub- 
jects, it is false to our own course in the revolution 
to dream of it; and the hearts of tlie whole Ameri- 
can people should burn at tyranny — should sympa- 
thize with the suffering, invigorate public opinion in 
their favor; and, as soon as duty may permit, af- 
ter their independence has become in fact established, 
through a new government instituted, and new 
Jaws and rulers selected, and stability and quiet 
given to their national affairs, we ought to acknov/- 
leJge both their de fiiclo and tie jure existence — 
iheir full right to come into the family of nations, 
and exercise all the powers of independent sover- 
eignties. The other side of this question is tl 
British or European side. Theirs is the doctrine of | 
«terna] a!le.giance. Ours that of free agency and 



self-government. Theirs is the doctrine of the di- 
vine right of kings. Ours that of the divine right 
of the people. Theirs is the doctrine of tyranny 
over the mind and conscience — the reign of it up- 
held by the bowstring, the inquisition, and standing 
armies. Ours is the doctrine of liberty, upheld by 
i-eason, intelligence, and sound morals. In some 
respects, the^ struggle between these principles has 
been going on since civilization has been much dif- 
fused, and especially betv,-een colonies and their 
parent country — the former striving for privileges 
commensurate with their growth and rights. 
It is the child become a man, and claiming the au- 
thority and immunities of a man; and is to be coun- 
tenanced, rather than proscribed. All people thus 
situated, in all time — whether Carthagmians from 
Tyre, Greeks from Egypt, Marsellois and Syracu- 
cusans from Greece, Spaniards from Rome, North 
Americans from England, or South Americans from 
Spain — all have thus acted, and been thus recognised 
and sustained; and so must be Texas. But we were 
destined to open the drama on the new continent. 

The colonial system thus prostrated here in 1776, 
and a new government like our own springing up 
on its rufns, astonished the powers of Europe, as 
well as all the Old World, as much as the original 
discovery of America by the great world-findtr who 
breathes in marble by Persico in front of the Cap- 
itol. Yet, forsooth, we hear it now gravely argxied 
that a people like those in Texas cannot, de jure^ 
cede their territory, or unite with us in government; 
but must first, with due humility, ask leave of Mex- 
ico, or submit to be reconquered by her, and have 
the conveyance emanate from her, in order to have 
it suit our opponents' modern American notions of 
self-government: and all this, though Texas revolted 
for as good cause as we did from England, though 
she has established as good a constitution and laws, 
and though she has maintained them all firmly and 
unimpaired for years, and has been recognised and 
negotiated with as a sovereign and independent na- 
tion by all the great powers of Christendom! Yes: 
kings, at the Congress of Vienna, may cede princi- 
palities and powers, extinguish old or create new 
governments, and transfer the people like sheep in the 
shambles; or kings alone may partition Polands, 
and blot out obnoxious dynasties and empires from 
the map of the world — as England does over and 
over again in India; — but a sovereign people and 
their established government, by a vote almost unan- 
imous, are to be held incompetent to cede their terri- 
tory and change their government. And this is to 
be held, also, by us Anglo-Americans and Spanish 
Mexicans, who exist as nations only by revolts and 
changes of their own governments; and, further- 
more" that, if we dare only by peaceful negotiation 
to take the cession, it ought to call down on our 
presumptuous heads all the horrors of foreign war. 

What are the more specific points in this objec- 
tion interposed by senators in debate? 

First, that, though independent and sovereign, the 
republic of Texas is not competent to cede its whole 
territory, though it might be to cede a part. And it 
is urged that, in the case of Louisiana and Florida, 
only a part of Spain and Fiance was ceded. 

But how absurd does such an objection appear, 
when, if Texas owns 200,000,000 of acres, she 
might legally cede 199,999,999 acres, but not that 
and the other acre; or she might legally cede a quar- 
ter of it at one time, another quarter at another, and 
so through the whole, except the last! No, sir; she 
is neither entirely independent nor entirely sever- 



eign, if incapable of conveying the whole. Such 
are the principles of national law. 

"A free people, or a king, may alienate their territory, in 
part or in full."— (Grotius, '2 b., ch. 6, sec. 7.) 

And if in full, then the union of their people with 
onr form of government follows* as a matter of 
course, unless they choose to emigrate elsewhere, and 
join some other government, or form a new one, on 
^?ome vacant portion of the earth — like that of iEneas 
and his companions from Troy, or Dido from Tyre. 
And if the people and the independent republic of 
Texas are, for this reason, not as competent to unite 
with us entirely as they are to cede only a part of 
their territory, then the absurdity would seem to 
follow that they never can be competent for admis- 
sion into the Union, though recogni.sed by Mexico, 
and no shadow of war existing, till they become 
(jv.alified by abandoning their indepoidence, repudi- 
ating republicanism, and, as a servile dependency or 
reconquest of the monarchs of Spain or Mexico, be 
sold merely as a portion of their territory to the 
United States. 

When senators contend that this ces.sion of the 
whole destroys the ceding government or nation, 
and is hence impracticable and unprecedented, they 
forget that the nation may still hold together and 
migrate, or may agree to unite witli the neighbor to 
whom their territory has been conveyed; and that 
this is neither unusual or unreasonable. Pray tell 
me, did not Rhode Island unite with us — all her ter- 
ritory, and all her people, and all her goverrmient — 
rather than a part; and thus became annexed to that 
Union whose constitution she before had refused to 
aid in forming, and refused to adopt till, in all quar- 
ters, denounced and reproached by your fathers, and 
• ill legislative penalties and burdens were threatened 
to her by the administration of Washington him- 
self.' But, notwithstanding this, does the senator 
[Mr. Simmons] admit, as he argues about Texas, 
that Rhode Island was incompetent to unite with us.' 
that she came in only under the threats of Congress, 
and hence it was void.' or that her "Zoiie's^ar" (all the 
cfher old States being then under a new constitution 
without her) became, by a junction with them, 
blotted out, extinguished, and her sovereignty de- 
stroyed.' Just as much in her case as in that of 
Texas; and, as 1 have shown before and will ere 
long again, just as much, and no more, as new 
provinces and their whole governments were de- 
stroyed by uniting with Holland, and others with 
Switzerland, and others with Central America, and 
others with us. ' 

It is true that, if the republic thus ceding and 
uniting, is under obligations to others, she cannot 
thus become rid of them; but they remain on her, or 
the whole government to which she is joined.' Such 
are her obligations by treaties, and her liabilities or 
exposures for wrongs, or for claims, however un- 
just, by other powers. But that does not impair 
the full right to make a cession, though it may affect 
the expediency and duty of us to take it, if the lia- 
bilities are very onerous, or her belligerent dangers 
very imminent or unjustifiable. 

We will look into that soon, after disposing of 
tJie question of the right to cede the whole. The 
only other point in the objections, I have heard 
urged against that right, is the claim still set up by 
Mexico to rule over Texas. But, however that 
claim may be obstinately persisted in, I contend 
that, after all which has taken place, and now ex- 
ists, it does not impair the right of other natioAs 



to take such cession, or of Texas to make it. Please 
to note the distinction. 

The incident that a war may be waged by any 
belligerent against any purchaser of territory from 
the other belligerent, does not impair the right to 
sell; for the vender may have owned the territory 
for centuries, and been recognised by its antagonist, 
as well as the rest of the world. But it does influ- 
ence the expediency of buying, and more especially 
if the belligerent conveys all his territory, and unites 
his government with another; because, in that event, 
I admit that the risk of such claims, and such hos- 
tilities as exist — .all the incumberances are assumed. 
Yet this is the whole, and is no impeachment of the 
independent and sovereign right to convey; that 
right Texas has, if she possesses the usual attri- 
butes of a nation. 

"She is one, as before explained in a recent 
letter of mine on this subject, in such manner 
and form, no less than substance, as, in my ap- 
prehension, justifies other nations in treating her as 
a de jure as ■well as a de facto government, and com- 
petent, under the principles of popular liberty, and 
the soundest international law in both hemispheres, 
to cede her territory, or unite her government to 
another, without asking the consent, or giving just 
cause of v/ar to any power. 

"What are the common-sense tests on this subject.' 
If size of territory, she is as big as France, and as 
large as any four of our own States. If population, 
she has one ranging by different estimates from two 
to three hundred thousand people of all kinds. If 
a regular consitution of government and code of 
laws, she has both. If a uniform administration of 
justice and the rights of conscience secured to all, 
rather than the protection of the Catholic religion 
alone, r.s in Mexico, she enjoys them. She has 
troops and ships of war. She has had her inde- 
pendence acknowledged by the United States, by 
Great Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, and, in- 
deed, all the great powers of Christendom, not un- 
der the sway of the Holy Alliance; and she has 
treaties of commerce and international agents with 
most of them. 

"No towns, castles, or counties, have there been 
held by her old enemy in doubtful or divided em- 
pire. Her revolution is not in embryo, but full 
grown. Not going on by preparatory steps, but 
finisljed — stable. Not distracted by rival constitu- 
tions, rival chieftains, and rival armies, such as long 
desolated many Spanish provinces, but domestic 
harmony and peace reign throughout. Their pris- 
ons are not filled with political victims. Order, and 
law, and the rights of property, are respected; and 
neither taste, nor education, nor sympathies of any 
kind, are lingering round their former government, 
and smoothing the way to the remotest thought at 
reconciliation. But Texas has other qualities and 
characteristics as a nation, showing her competent 
to enter into any contract or arrangement with other 
nations, as fully as the oldest power of Europe. Be- 
sides having been for several years admitted, in all 
respects, into the great family of nations, she is lia- 
ble for her own wrongs to them, and is held so, and 
not Mexico, as appears by her treaty of indemnity 
to us in iS.SS. She is authorized to seek redress for 
injuries to herself, and not Mexico for her; and she 
has, in this way, and by treaties binding her com- 
merce, limits, soil, and jurisdiction, been much wi- 
der acknowledged, and longer in the independent 
government of herself, than had Bonaparte in 
France when he sold Louisiana to us. Such, I ad- 



10 



mit, -ft lis not the position of her eiffairs when an- 
nexation was proposed and declined in 1837; but 
their afiairs have made great strides since; and one 
unfortunate mistake with some, in the consideration 
of this topic, appears to be in not reflecting enougli 
on the changes in her relations and national maturity 
ty and stability, made by the progress of tmie and 
events during the past seven years. It is manifest, 
thaX if a peojilc have, by sound principles, a right to 
self-government, and, when oppressed, can, like the 
United States, properly revolt from England, or 
Mexico from Spain, or Texas from Mexico, and 
having declared their independence, do maintain it 
till they give, as in this case, all the usual indica- 
tions among nations of manhood — discretion, pow- 
er, justice, and order, the question of their de jure 
sovereignty tlius becomes as clearly settled in re- 
spect to all tliird persons as their de facto sovereign- 
ty. The assent or acknowledgment of their old 
masters does not constitute the right, but merely ad- 
mits it; as the minors or apprentices, claiming to be 
adults and free, and acting as such, derive their 
rights from the facts of the case, whether acknov/l- 
edged'or not !)y those to whom they were once in 
subjection. I'he world must otherwise become 
divided into mere holy alliances, with all their mo- 
nopolizing dogmas on the one hand, and on the oth- 
er only such as they consider mere rebels, pirates, 
and banditti; breaking up in this way all reform or 
progress, and yielding to the claim of the divine 
right of kings over all the human race, till voluntarily 
relinquished. The war of opinion on this question 
was settled in favor of the people, after sixty years 
of desolation and carnage on the plains of Holland; 
again at Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown; again in 
Europe, after deluging France in blood; again and 
again on botli slopes of the Andes, as well as in 
Mexico herself, on a basis never again to be shaken 
in the New Vvorld." 

Moreover, she has a body of intelligent and tal- 
ented men of the true Saxon race. And if all these 
do not constitute a State, what does? Not kings, 
garters, and titles of nobility — not high-walled bat- 
tlements, nor moated gates — but "men — high-minded 
men — who know their rights, and knowing, dare 
maintain." 

The last objection under this head is, that, though 
she may be a de facto State, she is not one de jure; 
and therefore possesses no competency to make the 
cession . 

What is a de facto government as contradistin- 
guished from a dejure one? It seems to be argued 
that one merely possesses power, regardless of right 
or without reference to right. The other not only 
]>ossesses it, but rightfully, under good authority, 
reasons, or laws; for jure means only one or the 
other, as occasion requires. Thus, Cromwell's gov- 
ernment has been called a de facto one. But with- 
out reference to his ultimate rights in respect to the 
Stewarts, many other nations made treaties with 
him, as rightful head of England, in less than one 
year after he became ])rotector. Such as that with 
Denmark September 15th, 1654, when he had been 
protector only since December 16, 1653, and in 
1654 with Sweden, Portugal, and France.— (3d 
col. of treaties, 67.) 

The possession of power, I grant, must not be 
merely momentarij, and unsettled or changing, but 
apparently firm. (Martin's Laws of Nations, b. 7, 
chapter 1.) And he was well known to multiply 
his treaties in order to strengthen his claim of right. 

In this way, lie soon became so fully sealed in 



power, and the nation so acquiescent, and the Stewarts 
so incapable of disturbing him, that his treaties of 
alliance and cessions, as well as other treaties — like 
those of Bonaparte to us of Louisiana, in less than 
two years from his acknowledgment by other pow- 
ers — must be regarded as right and valid. What 
Stewart or Guelph since have dared to violate any 
of Cromwell's treaties as not made by a de jure gov- 
ernment, so far as respects all foreign powers? 
What Bourbon has, since 1803, ventured to attempt 
to vacate Napoleon's treaties of cession with us as 
well as other powers, for not being made by a de 
jure government, looking to the rest of the world? 

But there is much more in the present case as to 
the (Ze jure government of Texas, if we regard its 
origin and our own system of politics. Texas has 
been, as we before intimated, an independent and 
sovereign state, with an excellent separate constitu- 
tion, near twenty years. Her union, during a part 
of this period, with the Mexican confederacy, does 
not alter this. She has since broken no obligations 
as to that confederacy, but they have all been bro- 
ken by her oppressors; and these last are the real 
rebels and overthrowers of the confederacy, and not 
she. Texas had reason, authority, and law — all to 
resist the assaults of Mexico for enslaving her to a 
new and consolidated system. She had never en- 
tered into any such system. Her efforts to maintain 
her inde])endence imder those assaults have been as 
riglitful as ours in 1776. She has, since 1836, been 
independent even of the confederacy, and been a de 
jure, as well as de facto, sovereign government; and 
though, in 1837, the union with her might have been 
more likely to expose us to war, and hence not pru- 
dent, it would, in the other viev/, as de jure, have 
been perfectly justifiable, if her government then 
had appeared to be settled, mature, and efiicient. 

It is most extraordinary, that tlie right of Texas 
to cede to us her territory without the consent of Mex - 
ico, should now be made by those, who, in 1825 and 
1829, did not question the right of Mexico, dejure as 
well as de facto, to cede Texas wittiout the consent of 
Spain. 

How stood the facts then as to details? Mexico, 
though revolutionary, and with internal disturbances 
under Spanish supremacy between the Creoles and 
others, from 1810 to 1821, yet never sought nor 
asked independence of Spain; and both parties vied 
in loyalty to her, till Iturbide's defection, and 
the declaration of independence, made at Iguala, 
24th February, 1821.— (4 State Papers, 848, 835, and 
1 Foot's History, 94, 96, 99.) The troops and 
power of Spain were driven from the capital and 
most of the cities during that year; but the castle of 
Ulloa, at Vera Cruz, continued in the possession of 
the mother country, when we recognised her inde- 
pendence in 1822, and when we first applied to re- 
purchase Texas in 1825, as extending to the Rio del 
Norte. The constitution of Mexico admits that her 
independence never commenced till 1821, being 
^'given in Mexico Alh October, ]82A, fourth year of inde- 
pendence."' — (2 Kennedy, 443.) Yet in only one 
year after the adoption of this constitution — only 
four after her independence was declared, and but 
three after it was recognised by us, all short of what 
prevails in Texas now — Messrs. Adams and Clay 
thought she had the de jure right to cede territory to 
us, without asking the consent of Spain, and without 
heeding the adoption of any war then existing. 

Flow could that be legitimate, if Texas, after 
being an independent State near twenty years, and 
separated from Mexico eight years, cannot now be 



11 



allowed as de jure competent to negotiate for selling 
her territory without the consent of Mexico? Like 
facts apply to 1829; and tliey are appealed to now, 
not for taunt or recriminatioii, but as evidence tliat 
the aolest minds then, and the most experienced 
diplomatists, had entire confidence that such a ces- 
sion as is now before us could l-ie accepted with 
propriety, and vindicated before the morality, re- 
ligion, and law of the whole civilized world. 

The only other dilfei-ences material to the argu- 
ment are, that in 1>^25, Mexico had been recog- 
nised by not half so many other f.ation.s a.s Texas 
has how, and had maintained her indcjieudeiirc 
for only abon: iialf as long a ]< riod: -.wxl that 
the revolution in Mexico was then indi^rcssin;^-, mn 
'hi ail respects fmished — her indtpeMilrine miscttled, 
not firm — her soil invaded and occupied i'v her en- 
emy, not fiee from hostile feet — iier laws de:s]iof;c, 
not liberal — her jieople agitated by internal Ijroils 
ar.d factions, not miited or peaceful; and Santa 
Anna's government much like what Bolivar consid- 
ered his in Pern — not settled, but a camp; for (said 
he") "fi!j/ «(/);;,■(. r'i'((,'(,",'i riiA imhihr itii''d a cirnpaign.^'' 
^ifi:ritori,{U< i:, ■;inTfxa;<r, Avanw i!, /ic-e, if P,Iexico 
could then. Imi: ainilhcr (lilhrciiv-c, siil! more poten- 
tial in its inflnen/e rath.crthnn argumentative in force, 
is, I admit, tha.t nobody then stood behind Spain to 
back her u;/; vvliile iiov/ we see, or seem to see, tlie 
shaihnss nr' Iv inland's thousand ships of war in the 
wake of r\ic\:-o, and hostile to our success from 
othf-r rau.^e^ n.o deeply v/ell known to need reca- 
pitn'ation. 

What (hi gi ;n;tmen on the other side, as lawyers 
and }iublic:;=;s, lioid as the true doctrine on this sub- 
ject of a'e fticlo and de jure governnicnts.' Let us be 
plain and explicit with each otlier. Was not Crom- 
well's Protectorate, after established and recognised 
by other pov/ers, a dejiire as well as dc facto govern- 
ment in respect to them.' And could he not l-^gally 
have ceded territory, as well as received cessions, 
until the Stewarts and their partisans renounced 
their claims.^ Did foreign powers treat with him or 
with the exiled family.' So with Napoleon: was he 
not de jure as well as de facto emperor, as to the 
rest of the v.-orld, until th.e Bourbons and their parti- 
sans should recognise him.' Was he acknowledged and 
treated with, or Louis the 18th in banishment." Keither 
he nor Cronnvell was ever able to transfer territory 
and impose obligations on either England or France, 
by the doctrines on the other side, thougliaH history 
and national law have settled the fact the other v.-ay. 
Some doubted the de jure right of Don Miguel, wlicn 
in power de ,f(tc<o, and others that of Joseph Bona- 
parte in Spain, and even of Louis Philippe, now in 
France; but were they, and are they not all, regard- 
ed as de jure to make and receive cessions while in 
power, and acknowlgedged by other nations, how- 
ever soon most of them, as well as Cromwell and 
Bonaparte, became dethroned.' 

But the senator from Massacliusetts says there are 
three stages in rcachhtg de jure power. First, a rev- 
olution; second, a recognition by others; and thirdly, 
an acknowledgment by the old authorities, or an 
utter abandonment by them of their claims. But 
neither such acknowledgment nor such abandon- 
ment took place by the Stewarts as to Cromwell, or 
the Bourbons as to Bonaparte; and yet their acts 
have Jejtwe bound both England and France as to 
all other nations. 

It is just so as to a revolution like Holland, 
IMexico, or the United States, or in one view Texas; 
separating a portion from the old government, and 



forming of It a new one, and declaring us mdepen- 
dence. Does nothing but the acknowledgment of 
the parent power, or an utter abandonment of its 
claims, enable the sejiarated and independent por- 
tion to perform dejure acts as a nation, and bind its 
people and acquire righ.ts for them of the rest of the 
world, as if a dejure government.' Ccitainly. Cer- 
tainly Holland, RIexico, and the United States, all, 
as well as Texas, liave claimed to be de jure long 
before such acknowledgment or abandonment. Hol- 
land dated her independence seventy years before 
Spain recognised it. 

Our independence dates from 1776, and not its re- 
cognition by England in 1783. So that of IVIexico, 
frrmi 1821 and not 1836, its recognition by Spairr. 
So Belgium, from 1830 and not afterwards, when 
I n-cd Tiiiscd by Holland. And so does Texas from 
' ]fi2G and n<i't anv future nericd, when Mexico may 
'admit it. 

I All of them have acted on such a claim liefore a 
I recognition by the parent government as right; and 
our assumed power to resist oppression and estab- 
lish new forms of government, without the consent 
I of our oppressors, is mere vapor, and the American 
I system Ijaseless, if that assent, express or implied, 
i iv" ,,,,,.r- :irr ;ii make our acts as to the rest of man- 
iKi.iii (' ;i:,' . Popular governments are never in- 
'lii.-^i ;.i s'liii jiiro distinrtions, cspeciidly when 

1 admit 
or the 



]]■ 



■\v ^1 



condition, does not require other iiatitv,;.-; to go 
farther unless they ;)h'ase, and depart tV :.!n a neutral 
position, or by any act, not required I'y pn!i!:c duty, 
become exposed to act'ial \v.\i\ and that it has been 
customary with other natHuis, mcluding ourselves, 
not to go 'any farther. — ,4 .State Papers, 846,848.) 
But thTs grows out of the absence of any mnlire usu- 
ally to go farther, and out of the penibMc-y of a 
belligerent State between the old and nev/ nation, in 
which we might become uselessly involved; and not 
from the fact '.hat the new nation is not, de jure as 
well as defdcloa sovereign power as to all other 
nations, and, as such, comiietent de jure to do ^11 

j w:i!'-!i other belligerents may. Herein lies the 

I erro.- or fallacy of the reasoning on the other side. 

I Martin's Law of Nations, p. 77, substantially con- 
firms tiiese views, by holding that if a government 

' is established defirlo, foreign powers have no right 



w It ;s 



ju> 



I A recogmta)!! of independence of another power, 
I standing alone, obliges our courts to treat them so, 
and to give them and their citizens all rights of prop- 
erty and jurisdiction, and sovereignty, as in any 
other case. It is de jure as well as de facto, in the 
most critical and solemn forum of another nation. — 
(1 Kent, 25.) 

Yet some senators, after all, seem to think it but 
^'■an armed insurrection,''^ or, as Russia denominated, 
the independence of Mexico and South America, 
but "■criminal comhinalions^'' of seditious subjects 
against their legitimate kings. But it is neither the 
American side of the question, nor that espoused by 
Mr. V/ebster himself. 

".Mexico (says he) may havechosen to consider, and may 
still choose to'consider, Texas as having been, at all times, 
since ISS.i, and as still continuing, a reheuious province; hut 
the world has been obliged to taiie a very diflerer.t view of 
the matter. 

"And it must be added that the constitution, public trea- 
ties, and the laws,, oblige the President to regard Texas as 
an independent State, and its territory as no part of the ter- 
ritory of .Me-vico."— (See Letter of July, 19« ) 



12 



Nor is this merely theoretical. On two occasions 
"we have practically recognised the power of the de 
Jacto governments on the west of us to be dejure, so 
.18 to make permanent compacts with us concerning 
the boundaries of their territory, long before they 
v/ere acknowledged as sovereign by the parent 
country. 

Thus, 12th January, 1828, we completed with 
Mexico a treaty regulating the limit of the territory 
contiguous to us, without asking the consent of 
Spain, though she then made urgent claim to Mex- 
ico, though the latter had been independent but 
seven years, and though her separate sovereignty 
had not then been acknowledged by Spain, and was 
jnottill 1836. 

So, again, in 1838, April 25, we made a similar 
treaty of limits with Texas, as to lier territory, with- 
out consulting Mexico, and when her de jure rights 
"were as much in question as now. Some have 
asked if the right to cede was clear in 1837 as well 
as now, why the proposal then was not accepted? 
Simply, because tlie danger of war was then greater, 
and the hope of permanent independence was less. 

The character and prospects of the war with 
Mexico in 1837 were very different from the condi- 
tion of things now; and our exposure much greater 
then to be involved in difficulty of taking a cession 
so soon after one great invasion, and amidst the 
pro.spcct of another, and without any long abandon- 
ment, as now, of a regular war on Texas for many 
years. 

f'The government of Texas was then, also, less 
settled; less firm; less hkely to be permanent; less 
ripened; less recognised by all Christendom; and 
her claims less on the sympathies and interference 
of other friendly powers, by alliances or cessions, 
to put an end to barbarous marandings, as well as 
oppression; and the authority of Mexico was less to 
enforce any pretensions over a territory so much 
longer independent, acknowledged by others, ma- 
tured in her institutions, and, by the lapse of time, 
emancipated from her vain efforts at control. The 
statute of limitations bars most debts and claims in 
iive or six years; and much more than that has 
elapsed here. 

The whole real difficulty resolves itself into 
one, not of a right now to sell or cede on the one 
part, and we to buy on the other, but one as to the 
just and probable consequences of the transaction, 
considering the relations actually existing between 
Mexico and Texas, whether belligerent or not; and, 
if belligerent, whether justly so or not. It follows, 
then, that, if an independent sovereignty, Texas can 
cede rightfully her whole territory, as well as a part, 
and unite her government, as well as territory, with 
"US, if she pleases. Such acts are done constantly in 
Europe, and here, both in republican confederacies, 
and monarchies, as befoi-e shown; and Vattel, as 
cited by the senator from Illinois, [Mr. Breese,] 
recognises the principle fully. 

Having discussed the right to receive and the 
right to cede Texas, the next question is, whether, 
as a duty, the treaty for the annexation ought not to 
be ratified. Are the reasons for it not ample, and 
our duty clear? The presumption certainly would 
be that, unless strong public objections exist, no na- 
tion would decline the offer of a large addition to 
its territory, population, and power. More espec- 
ially does such a presumption arise, when the terri- 
tory is contiguous, and convenient, if not necessa- 
ry; ha.s been long sought for under three or four dif- 
erent administrations; is governed by institutions 



and laws similar to our own, and inhabited by si 
people, most of whom have a like origin, edu- 
cation and religion with ourselves; and concentrate 
their affections and wishes on a reunion with the 
great national family from which they sprang. 

I am not one of those disposed to exaggerate the 
advantages of such an union to us; nor would I, on 
the contrary, scoff at the objections which are enter- 
tained — and honestly, without doubt — by many 
against it. But, in weighing the latter, I trust that 
we may be able to free ourselves from some pre- 
judices and apprehensions suited to other forms of 
government rather than a representative confedera- 
cy; and be a little less local in policy and timid in 
action than if we were, as once, but three millions of 
people, and had confined our explorations to Lake 
Champlain and Cape Cod, rather than stretching 
west on our own soil to the Rocky mountains and 
the Pacific ocean. 

Not forgetting the enlarged duties, as well as in- 
terests, that have devolved on us by our new posi- 
tion, let us examine, dispassionately, both the rea- 
sons for and the objections against the annexation 
proposed, as a moral and political duty. For, 
though the right to take and to make the cession 
may on both sides be clear, our duty may not re- 
quire an assent to the ratification; and I am frank to 
say, that if I regarded the treaty as a mere pecu- 
niary speculation, like the calculations of the sena- 
tor from Rhode Island, [Mr. Simmoks,] my hopes 
would not be great for profit or credit; or, if I 
looked at some of the reasons assigned for the 
measure in the correspondence, or the prudence of 
some of the agents employed, or th.e patriotism of 
some taking deep interest in the question. But 
these and many formal exceptions, seem scarcely 
suitable to the magnitude of the subject, and the 
high duties and national honor and interests which are 
at issue. One of the most prominent of these inter- 
ests is the importance of Texas to the United States 
for security to the commerce of the West and South- 
west, through the mouth of the Mississippi river. 
The freedom of that commerce was a topic which, 
as long ago as under the old confederation, agitated 
the whole country. It then introduced the first geo- 
graphical division of parties between the South and 
the North; in which the latter, unfortunately, was 
quite as strenuous in resisting efforts and sacrifices 
to obtain that freedom, as it is now in resisting 
those to secure it, after having been obtained. 

A few circumstances in the agitation of that age 
indicate strongly prejudices and contests not very 
unlike the present one. 

Mr. Gorham, of Massachusetts, "avowed his 
opinion, that the shutting the Mississippi would be 
advantageous to the Atlantic States, and wished to 
see it shut." — (Madison Papers, p. 609.) 

But Virginia extended over Kentucky, and claim- 
ed all the Northwest; while North Carolina also 
crossed the Alleghanies into Tennessee. Hence the 
South, at that early day, became the champions of 
western interests, no less than southern ones. 

And though Mr. Aymer, apjiarently concurring 
with Gorham, "thought the encouragement of the 
western country was suicide on the part of the old 
States, — (3 Madison papers, 1446 page;) — and 
though the vote of seven States was at first procured 
to proceed in the negotiations with Spain, without 
insisting on the free navigation of the Mississippi, — 
yet Mr. Jefferson wrote that the navigation of the 
Mississippi we must have — (1 Jefferson's Life, 
433 page.) And Mr. Jay at last admitted our right 



13 



to it was good. — (4 Secret Journal, 451.) And the 
old Congress, before breaking up, in September, 
1788, soleinnly — 

Resolved, That the free navigation of the river Missisi?- 
sippi is a clear and essential right of the United Siates, and 
that the same ought to be considered and supported as 
such."— (4 Secret Journal, 403, Septemlier 16, 1778.) _ 

In the convention, while forming the constitution, 
Governeur Morris frankly stated that "the fisheries,'''' 
and the '^Mississippi" security to them, were "the 
two great objects of the Union." — (3 Madison 
Papers, 1523.) 

The whole question, as a national one, was then 
settled. That was the embryo of the present crisis. 
The duty to secure became as imperative as had 
been the duty to obtain. A million and a half of 
square miles of territory, and what are now nine 
millions of people on the waters of the Mississippi 
and her tributaries, were foreseen, and were to be 
shielded in peace as in war; and tranquillity to their 
institutions, no less than safety to their property of 
every kind, were in advance solemnly guarantied, 
and were never to be neglected. On this implied 
pledge your public lands have been sold there and 
settled. 

It is not necessary, at this part of our inquiry, to 
detail all the steps since taken under the constitu- 
tion to carry out faithfully one of those great 
•objects of the Union connected with the Misssissip- 
pi. Spain resisted and intrigued against all this. 
She was one of the last to accede to our indepen- 
dence, and to make any .treaty of limits on the 
south as to the Florida line, from fear of our revolt 
proving an example contagious to her American col- 
onies. It is said by one of our most learned his- 
toi-ians, that a document exists, in which she was 
advised by her prime minister then to allow the 
whole of them to become independent, except her 
West India islands; and if that advice had been 
'followed, which subsequent events, with the loss of 
millions of life and treasure, show to have been so 
wise, our present difficulties as to Texas would 
probably never have arisen. She pursued the op- 
posite policy, and, after the peace of 1783, sought to 
push her claims even on the Mississippi, as high up 
as the Ohio river, and as far east as the Alleghanies. 
Andafterdrivingher from these pretensions, and then 
from Florida and Louisiana, her descendants hold 
■on upon Texas with a death-gripe; and long 
after their ability to subdue it, or its value to them 
can make it an object in itself at all desirable. Both 
.freedom and security to the navigation of that 
mighty river were once placed wholly within our 
grasp by the purchase of Louisiana. 

I say this under the impression that the western 
boundary of Louisiana, on the Gulf of Mexico, 
truly extended to the Rio del Norte, as heretofore 
shown. Any border enen.y was then flung off to 
.a safe distance from the great outlet of near 
half the exports of the whole Union. New Orleans, 
the magnificent depot of the entire valley of the 
Mississippi, was then shielded from hostile sur- 
prise. Our trade with the West Indies and Eu- 
rope, left more open and unannoyed, and the 
vast population on the western waters, now 
nine, and ere a century more to be ninety, millions 
of people — treble the numbers of either France or 
England, and more than treble their size in territo- 
ry — was thus to be better protected, not only in 
their commerce, but in their lives and honor, from 
both the hostile tread and hostile machinations of 
an encroaching enemy. The security thus gained 
from the Indian scalping-knife was an additional 



motive, and every cradle in the West witnessed ec 
sounder sleep when the tomahawk could be re- 
moved farther off, and forts and greater distances 
were interposed between the log cabin and the sav- 
age torch. 

I say that all this was accomplished with the 
boundary then obtained, and was in some degree 
lost without it, having, as we had, a foreign foe 
and foreign Indians s"o near us as the Sabine and 
the Red rivers. The great American captain of our 
age, with hundreds of others, have staked their 
skill and reputation on this; and hence that boun- 
dary, if once owned by us, should never have been 
parted with in 1819; or should be regained the 
first favorable and just opportunity, as has been 
since constantly attempted again and again, and as 
is now amicably within our power, by ratifying the 
treaty under consideration. We have already seen 
that it is no new idea that freedom of commei'ce is 
of little value without its security. 

It is no new project that aline farther west than 
the Sabine is vital to its security, as well as impor- 
tant for protection in war, both against civilized and. 
savage foes. 

It is no new vagary, that when our fathers, in 
1786, finally resolved on their rights to the free nav- 
igation of the Mississippi, the)', also, in the same 
act, and by the same dauntless spirit, meant to en- 
force that right till successful, and to defend it, also, 
whence once acknowledged, as they afterwards did 
in many an Indian war, as well as on the bloody 
fields of New Orleans. It is no new principle of 
national law, that it then became the duty of the 
whole Union to look over the luxuriant regions west 
of the Alleghaniesi with the same affection and aid, 
and lavish on them a like deference and regard as on 
other parts of the Union; and that only half our ob- 
ligations would be discharged in procuring a free 
navigation of the western waters, if not following it 
up with procuring security to that navigation and 
the immense interests connected with it. Such men 
as Messrs. Gorham and Clymer had, or ought to 
have, outgrown their more narrow views and sec- 
tional prejudices. The West and the Southwest 
were, by the tide of emigration, becoming bone of 
our bone and flesh of our flesh. In taking honest 
panis to give them protection as well as prosperity, 
the position of things has so changed, that the North, 
and East, and Middle States, are in truth giving 
them to their own families, or the playmates of their 
youth. Even if selfishness prompted a different 
course in 1785, it will, if enlightened, concur in 
the coui-se recommended in 1844. Let me 
particularize a single illustration of this among 
thousands of like cases scattered over the Easf, 
and, indeed, the whole Atlantic States. 

On one of the hill-tops in the interior of New- 
Hampshire, only two generations ago, dwelt a true, 
enterprising, industrious New England family. Are 
they still confined to their native mountains, and 
their interests and affections centred only there.' Oa 
the contrary, sir, some of them are felling the forests 
in the mighty West; others plant in the sunn)r 
South; one is pushing his fortunes in the Empire 
State; another in Michigan; another in Mississippi j 
another on the rich soil of Alabama; and thus their 
homes and their fortunes, their anxieties and their 
patriotism, cu-e limited only by their country's ex- 
tent and welfare. The next generation will proba- 
bly see some of their descendants in Oregon or 
Texas, and breathing the balmy air of the Columbia 
or Rio del Norte. 



u 



Such, sir, is the destiny of most of the people of 
this leading republic of tlie New World, presenting 
a form of gotcrnment as novel and striking as was 
the continent itself, when discovered by Columbus, 
and developing a mission on earth by this branch of 
the Anglo-Saxon race, which, while tlie school- 
house and village church, side by side, mark their 
frogress, will never be co/npleted till they i-each the 
'acific. The mass of them are not, as they wan- 
der, either fanatics or bigots, but conform to all lo- 
cal institutions like peaceable citizens, till reason 
and experience are able to v/ork salutary changes. 

How much more is it our duty to receive these 
persons into the Union, when an opportunity 
offers, than the French of Louisiana, or the Span- 
iards of -Florida! However worthy, in many respects, 
the character of the latter, yet all must see tliat the 
moral fitness, the education, habits, and religion of 
most of our kin in Texas, render them more suitable 
for an intimate alliance with us; and that their re- 
publican form of government makes the Union more 
appropriate than what we have already overcome in 
receiving those in Louisiana and Florida, educated 
under monarchies. Another important consecpience 
of the purchase of Louisiana, was to give greater quiet 
to the commerce and people on all the tributaries of 
the iVIississippi, as well as on its own great chan- 
nel. But parting with Texas, we lost in the same 
treaty the sources of the Arkansas and Red rivers, 
as well as large tracts of land adjoining; and unless 
reannexed, a door is opened for constant annoyances 
and collisions between us and those higher up on the 
stream; and one cardinal boieiit of the original pur- 
chase ;s entirely relinquished. 

The treaty presents at the same moment a fortu- 
nate occasion to do that, as well as enforce better the 
guaranties of the constitiUion to promote ^'domestic 
iranquillity'''' in the South and Southwest, no less 
than the West and East. The property and do- 
mestic institutions of the former, however difierent 
from those at the North, were secured as amply 
under the old confederation as those of any other 
region; so are they by the present constitution; so 
are they by all our legislative and judicial decisions; 
and so must they continue to be, till the compro- 
mises of the constitution are wantonly violated, or 
the Union dissolved. Hence the losses or capture of 
their property in slaves have often been indemnified; 
their escape into other Slates has been redressed by 
a surrender of them; and the domestic Iranquillity de- 
signed for all the States, as set out in the preamble 
of the constitution as one paramount object for its 
adoption, has again and again been sought to be se- 
cured, in times of excitement and peril, precisely 
as they are likely to be by the ratification of this 
treaty. 

In 1811, the executive was empowered by Con- 
gress, after careful deliberation in secret, to take 
possession of Florida by force, with a view to pre- 
serve, more undisturbed, the domestic relations and 
quiet of the South. So, in 1810, Mr. Madison, of his 
own motion, took possession of the country east of 
Lake Pontchartrain to the river Perdido; for this, 
among other objects that need not be repeated. 
Though his course was then denounced as war by 
his opponents, yet Congress, by an act in 1812, rati- 
fied it, and annexed that tract to the State of Louisi- 
.ina; and did this without asking the consent of 
Spain, or of the people of the United States, or of the 
inhabitants of the soil, and while many of them 
were in a state of actual revolt. 
Again; in 1^20, for the same, among other ob- 



jects, when the treaty for the cession of the Floridas 
remained wrongfully unratified by Spain, Mr. Mon- 
roe recommended to Congress the immediate occu- 
pation of that country by virtue of legislation; and 
tliis v/as prevented only by the subsequent ratifica- 
tion and peaceful delivery of it, without rendering 
an actual resort to violence, on our part, necessary, 
after it had been proposed. 

In short, the South stood shoulder to shoulder 
with us in tlie revolution with this property and 
these institutions. They came into the Union with 
them on equal terms; they have so rem;-Jned for half 
a century, and .so must they continue, till injustice 
or fanaticism or treason violate all the sacred com- 
promises of all we hold dear. 

The ratification of this treaty is also vastly im- 
portant to our whole people in an industrial point of 
view. It gives to us enough additional territory for 
four or five large States, immediately contiguous; 
and some of them, by their location on the ocean, 
with fine bays and immense rivers, virtually Atlan- 
tic States in tlieir habits and intercourse; an in- 
crease of near a third of a million in our population; 
and a near and rich outlet for the ovenlowings of 
the other States; swelling, as they must in the next 
fifty years, to more than most of the kingdoms of 
Europe in their mighty )nasses. The annexa- 
tion of Texas, in its influence on all the great 
branches of industry, is not merely a western or 
southern question, but one deeply interesting to eve- 
ry Cjuarter of our common country — whether it pro- 
motes that industry by opening to agriculture more 
fertile soils and genial climates, or by forming a 
wider home market for manufactures, or by furnisli- 
ing new articles of commerce, and new bays and 
rivers for the free navigation of western steamers, as 
well as coasting and freighting vessels from the East. 
Our independence of other countries by more lands,, 
more fitted to sugar, fine cotton, and rice, and even 
coffee, would thus be greatly promoted. 

On this and other kindred topics I shall not, on 
this occasion, eitlarge; believing that a very strong 
case of duty to take the cession is made out, unless 
it be counterbalanced by some of the objections 
which have been urged in this debate. 

I proceed at once to examine, in some detail, the 
most prominent of these objections: 

The annexation is opposed by some, on tlie 
ground that it will make our territory too large; 
but experience has evinced that a representative 
republic can, with convenience and eificiency, ex- 
tend over limits far wider than from the St. Croix 
to the Rio del Norte. Indeed, by the aid of rail- 
roads and steam, the Union, with Texas included, 
will be far more accessible in all its parts, either for 
business or government, than il was at the revolu- 
tion with only thirteen States, and those all situated 
on the narrow belt of the eastern -declivity of the Al- 
leghanies. And this objection, if tenable, should 
have been urged, and prevailed, before we purchased 
either Louisiana or the Floridas. 

How groundless, in connection with this, is the 
objection by some senators, [Messrs. Miller and 
CiioATE,] that duty does not require assent to the ces- 
sion, because it is the lustfor "territorial aggrandize- 
ment" which now pirompts us — when the whole we 
seek was not only obtained two generations ago, but 
was justified tlien by such men as Jefferson, 
Madison, and Monroe, and advocated since, and 
attempted to be regained, by such men as Adams, 
Clay, and .Tackson.' Or because, as imputed by the 
.senator from New Jersey, we wish to sieze Texas 



15 



now as "spoils of victory," '■•as a conquest by treaty,'''' 
when, in trutli, she comes into an equal union of 
rights and privileges, from friendship and muti-al 
interest — from choice — and smtcu fo. it by ed.ir.Mion 
and punciples, and i^amii'^- quite as nun h 
we, or as Rliode KKuid £,i"icd l>y upums' \ 
after 17S9, or as Scotland ^^)nicd '^y hei iiiiK 
England near the commencement of the last c 

To repeat again some of my remaiks on a foi.nei 
occasion. 

"The annexation has h^( n >| .-, (] , !,,,[ j ('ntv, 
because inclining the lial i ( < pnl n al | < \n in 
our s^'-tcm too much in i \ n oi il, Wi t nnd 
South But the bame (oui i <t i is > i i > ,. ! 1 
stiip us of all oui gieat di >,, i u c.,i I'li x u w t i . i 
— a countiy nevei to be -I Ki iiil( K (' iJii'i an \i i > - 
ican \\halei Mfcits Its \v U( s, ,n an .Vmcii \n tini- 
grant chooses to fisli, hupt, oi pUnt on the banks of 
. the Columbia. It wou'd als-), tiom b'le appicJien- 
sioas as to the bilf nee oi piwu n tl e Noi'th, pic- 
vent any futuie \ '^acoab'c an-ir \at on of the ^'ana- 
das, so ardently contcm|.L»td by oni fath^is fio.n 
the commencement of tlie ie\olntion, and it would 
lieretofore ha\< dt'eatcdiho pnul.dSt of ihf- Flon- 
das by Mr. ^ilonroc, and of Lou s ain, ni lud 
Texas,by Ml. Jefteison, and would not only ca^t 
censure on them and their venerable cuadju.ois, for 
thus deiangnig the balance of power then, but 
would add upioach on Messis Adams ..ml Clay 
for attempting to rcgun Tc\ is m Js25 and ls27, 
and on Geneiai Jackson and Mi Van Euicn toi a 
like attempt m 1821, ind,\»l,. t 's st.U woisp, by 
thiscouise of leisnnin i, i i tking, as was done 
in 1835 by Grnei.d .i i. 1 sun nd Mi. Fois-yth, to 
obtain a \ast tiact of idditic nal countiy sMll fauhci 
•south and west, fiom the foity-second degree of lati- 
tude to the thiity-se\cuth, and stietching towaids 
the setting sun over that degree across the entire 
continent. But, in truth, the durable interests of 
the whole Union are believed to Jiave been looked to 
on those occa.^ions as ii.iv.-; and the theoretical bal- 
ance of power, if adv. itc.i t,, at all, can never en- 
danger the practical workiii-s .,r our system, which 
wdl always proUuce great, st lia.rmony wlien least 
influenced by any sectioiuil j. alnii.-,ics or local oreju- 
dices; and which will akv.iy.s be most attiaotive 
strongest, and most flourishing, where freest, unless 
liberty and progress are mere phantoms of the im- 
agination." 

More than all tliis, Texas, if added to the Union 
may well be rc-aided, for ages if not forever, quite 
as much northern as western and southern in many 
of her principles and tastes. Her position on the 
ocean— her numerous and large rivers near— her cul- 
ture of sugar and rice, as well as cotton — her easy 
intercourse with the West Indies and the North— 
make her an Atlantic State for most purposes, and 
will connect her people, in their intercourse .and 
commerce, and views of political economy, very 
closely with the Atlantic portion of the Union; and 
perhaps more intimately with the northern parts of 
it than many now imagine. 

"It is opposed by others on account of the badness 
ot some of the reasons assigned for it; as if a good 
measure ought to be rejected because any one may 
please to urge some weak reasons for it. By others, 
because a few of its advocates are suspected of be- 
ing interested in the question; as if that could im- 
pair the usefulness of the annexation itself, or was 
not always an incident to almost every question of 
great m.ignitude. And by others still, because the 
auspices under which the measure is now proposed 



.are disliked; as if the necessity or value of a gift or 
purchase depended upon the character of the agents 
employed. 

It lo resisted by many for the le.ason that slavery- 
exists in Texas Th i ^ oi institution, to be sure, 
s which most people, \< u t ih North, aie, like 
nwith nnseif, aveise to. Ei t i i s v ' ., lespect the con- 
stitmion and the Union u nr m'ui tli u it is an insti- 
tution whi bout paient counfiy, befoie i'^e revolu- 
tion, foiled upon both the Noith ml t a '^'o r'•'• 
\^ hif'i, after be 'nu nmif deeply nit \ , cr}^ 
the SOI i.d and political systems ot i 'V 
Hst of the State, did not hesita.t « 



.s, h 



h^l Ling 
1 with he; 



/ 



^ Ho\.'e\ei depiecatid by ma.iy of as, we knovir 
till' none c.-'ii leg.illy .-holish the iiistitu'ion bat 
those who possp's it, and that whih this ha*- already 
been done since the ic\olini(in 1 y neaily half of the 
old S'tates, It may coiit nue tj be done by Texat; 
heiself, as well .-i'^ ol'iei 
then sense of duty a id i 
tianqiully to the e\( mis 
^Vh. t titetr flu anncxatu 
ha\e oi tin n.iasiue, 
iiy sciine ut 

most distinguished 'thinks it will ,dd inoie fiee 
i'mu sla-ie St.ites. But how<\er that may be, 
the fuends of annexation belie\p that, whne 
a Hjtction of It must lea.\p the iiistitut,on of 
skntiy just .as It IS, ■\Mthout mitigatio i. t le accept- 
ance id' It r moot add to the whole niunbei of sla\e'3 
now in Texas and the United States together; and 
ifdi ■ ' " 



sionei oi : ,ter, when 
'y m ly )ieimit it, if Jefl 
lit thru oun lights. 
1 ofTe^".s wdl really 
steins ;t be dom ted 
opponents, aimng whom the* 



rad L 



;pcrsiiio- Ilia! number over a wdder space, will 
Liaily teiid to make their freedom less expensive 
.anel more easy in any one State; or, if concentrating 
them iurtlier Soutli than now, will render voluntary 
emancipation more nortliwardly still, speedier and 
safer. Whetlier such considerations have prepon- 
derated before in overcoming this oiijf-ctlon with 
many of our most eminent 'friends „i liberty and 
philanthropy, I know not; but certain it is, that it 
did not pre^•ent ]\Ir. Jefferson and his northern dem- 
ocratic friends from purchasing Louisiana, includ- 
ing Texas li.is.!;-. ,:: ]S03; nor'Florida from being 
bought by .\!rss|; . Aionroeand Adams in 1819; nor 
Te;xas again !pi.:] being negotiated for by Messrs. 
Adams and Clay in 1825 and 1827; and by Gcjieral 
Jackson and Mr. Van Buren in the summer of 1829- 
the decree of Mexico for abolishing slavery in her 
possessions not being issued i;il S.-ptemberlo 182!)." 
—(See 4 Blum's Ainiual Itcgisur, p. 147.)' '. ~ 

It did not prevent us fi-om'k-ceping Texas with ail 
her slavery for sixteen years, and then exchanging 
her for another slave territory. Is it not safer to 
act vyith such men on a great national question? men 
of all parties, coincident on this single measure, not- 
withstanding the objection as to slavery.' Mu h 
safter than to indulge rashly in a disregard of evt / 
precedent and principle adopted in respect to it dur- 
ing half a century. 

International interferences, or encour.agements to 
destroy the domestic or political instiutions of each 
other, are .alike mischievous, whether attempt- 
ed by us against her church-and -state sys- 
tem, and monarchical government, or by England 
or the world'3 convemion, in sight of her Par- 



16 



liament against any of our institutions. Without 

foing into details on this unpleasant topic, these 
cious complaints about us tend to plunge the world 
into a state of constant warfare, rather than promote 
durable peace and civilization. 

Even the despot, Santa Anna, talks of keeping u^: 
hostilities against Texas, in order to put down do- 
mestic slavery there; and Ali Pacha in Egypt, while 
amidst all his tyrannies he has the address towards 
England to profess the emancipation of his slaves, 
renews yearly a frontier slave hunt to recruit his 
armies, navies, and household. 

What is this objection, when made among our- 
selves so pertinaciously, but a violation of 
Washington's farewell injunction against en- 
couraging sectional prejudicies and sectional 
divisions; and of Jefferson's deprecations in the 
Missouri controversy, against the drawing of "a 
geographical line, coinciding with a marked prin- 
ciple, moral, and political;" and which, if counte- 
nanced, would, in his opinion, constantly sink deep- 
er and deeper, and never be obliterated, except by 
disastrous results, which he did not wish to live 
long enough to witness.' — (4 Jefferson's Life, 324 p.) 

Declaring, as we have so often, that Cuba shall 
never be allowed to go into the possession of another 
power, I should like to know what is to be done 
with slavery there, if the island is ever occupied by 
tis? And if becoming a territory or a State, on what 
principle is it to be so, except that applied to Louis- 
iana, Florida, and therefore to Texa.s.' Are we to 
have whites under our dominion not free.' nor ever 
to be admitted into the Union on equal principles? 

I will only add, in order to avoid misapprehen- 
eion, that so far from feeling opposed to the termi- 
nation of slavery by all legal, safe, and constitu- 
tional means, none could rejoice more lieartily than 
myself to see it thus ended the world over; and 
among the whites, ax well as blacks; among the dis- 
franchised, the serfs and paupers of Europe, and 
even the dark Hindoos, as well as the sable sons of 
Africa; not confining my sympathies to color or 
r.ame, but to real degradation among the whole 
human race, and to their relief, by introdu- 
cing gradually a superior state of intelligence, 
religion, and rights, rather than by a rash crusade 
against law and order, and the public peace." 

Others still object to the form of the cession, 
holding it to be insufficient, unless made by 
an act of Congress, and hence it is not our duty to 
take the cession by this treaty. Various technicali- 
ties as to the power of treaties have been 
■urged against the present proceeding — such as the 
want of existing parties till the act is completed, and 
the absence of legislative as well as executive sanc- 
tion to the union of the two countries. But the peo- 
ple of Texas still continue a separate, independent 
government, competent to contract and hold their 
rights, not only till the treaty is ratified by our 
government and their own, but till an act of 
Congress, there and here, passes to enforce many 
provisions, which, in their nature, as in many other 
treaties, are imperfect and inoperative till that 
takes place. And if the sanction of their peo 
iple to a union like this, given at the same 
vtime their constitution was adopted, by an al- 
most unanimous vote, was supposed to be ol;so- 
lete, I should think it prudent to take their o[)in- 
lon again before the proceedings are deemed com- 
plete. Then, and not till all this is concluded, an 
actual delivery of possession takes place, and is ne- 
cessary to the validity of the cession. — (1 Kent's 



Com., 177.) Nor even after that is Texas extin- 
guished, as some have argued; she is still in politi- 
cal being, as a territory of the Union, and with full 
claims to enforce her rights, in due time and on 
equal terms, to become a State. 

An act of legislation in the form of a compact is 
no stronger than a law of Congress carrying the 
treaty into effect by estalblishing a territorial govern- 
ment, and making the proper appropriations and 
provisions. If these are done, then our people have 
assented through their proper and accustomed agents 
for such purposes, and Congress has assented, as well 
as Texas, both its government and people. We shall 
stand towards each other in all these respects, and shall 
continue to as we and our new separate States and ter- 
ritories do. The matter has thus duly commenced with 
a treaty. We take by it one step. A treaty, too, 
is the usual instrument for making agreements with 
foreign powers. It is defined to be "a compact of 
accommodation relating to public affairs." And if 
enforced by an act of Congress carrying its provi- 
sions into effect, it will have all the form' and 
substance in its course to- completion, whicii 
any legislative compact of union between countries 
before in domestic relations could possess in Eng- 
land or here. 

Some confusion has arisen on this point, I ap- 
prehend, from not adverting to the circumstance 
that, in this case, the ceded territory and its govern- 
ment are foreign, and not like those using legisla- 
tion alone, already in some degree connected as do- 
mestic members of the same sovereign — like Scot- 
land and Ireland. And so far from Texas being 
thus conquered, or annihilated, or degraded, or de- 
frauded, she is elevated to our own platform; her priv- 
ileges gained ore quite equal to ours; her star is 
l>laced in our galaxy, rather than extinguished; and 
the union is alike honorable and advantageous to all 
concerned. 

Another new objection has been pressed, that the 
cession contains too much land, and is thus not a 
duty, but a wrong, and exposes us to unavoidable 
collisions with other powers. But, unfortunately 
for this ground, the cession does not describe any 
particular quantity of land, or extend the limits of 
Texas to any specified boundaries whatever. It 
merely, in speaking of its extent, says, "all its terri- 
tories." We can hold, then, or claim, only "all its 
territories," its true and rightful boundaries, be they 
more or less. So was it with the purchase of Lou- 
i.siana, without any other limitations; and Bonaparte 
declined to make any specific ones, when asked, 
(see Marbois's History of Louisiana,) but for a 
reason directly the reverse to that which existed 
here, "the boundary being left without specifica- 
tion" here, in order to avoid difficulty. — (See the 
Texian documents.) 

The better opinion certainly is that the old Texas 

n west to the mouth of the Rio del JYorte on the 
Gulf, though Mr. Jefferson, as a compromise, was 
willing to stop at the Nueces or Colorado, and even 
the Gaudaloupe; and General Jackson, in 1829, 
proposed to buy only to the centre of the desert be- 
tween the Nueces and the Rio del Norte; but in 1835 
he wished to go quite to the latter, as did Messrs. 
Adams and Clay in 1825 and 1827.— (Doc. House 
of Reps., Sept. 1837, on Texas, 2 Foote's History, 
393.) 

Most people considered the line to run north on 
that river only to the mountains, though the legisla- 
ture of Texas, by a law, have claimed to run to its 
source. But Texas, by a mere law, could acquu ;■ no 



17 



title beyond what she conquered from Mexico, and 
actually governed. Hence, though her law includes 
more than the ancient Texas, she could hold and 
convey only that; or, at the uttermost, only what 
she exercised clear jurisdiction over. As to that, 
there is, and can be no eventual contest; and the 
deed of cession, like one by an individual at common 
law, would practically pass no more than was 
owned; and under it the grantee would get no more 
if he could, and could not if he would.* 

Another reason assigned why it is not c ur duty to 
accept this cession is, that the Senate, by ratifying 
the treaty, do, in conjunction with the President, de- 
clare war; when, by the constitution, it cannot be 
declared without the consent of the whole of Con- 
gress. This entirely falls to the ground if my 
views are right, that all treaties like this are inoper- 
ative till a law of Congress passes to carry them 
into effect. For then, before its validity is perfected 
so as to produce war, the whole of Congress assents. 
Even in England, an act of Parliament is necessary 
to give effect to some treaties, as was held here in 
Jay's treaty in 1796; and in other treaties after the 
late war — as well as in the treaties for purchasing 
Louisiana and the Floridas. Whenever money is 
to be paid, or officers appointed, and a territorial gov- 
ernment organized, an act of Congress is indispensa- 
ble to complete its operations. Hence, without going 
into the question, how wide a range of discretion 
exists in passing or not passing such an act, war is 
not declared, nor waged, till Congress choses to do it 
by a subsequent act. If, before that, it is commenced 
against us wrongfully, as it may be on this or any 
other occasion. Congress still retains the power to 
repel it or negotiate. On the very theory upon the 
other side, the act of the President and Senate alone, 
so far as regards war, is beyond its authority, and 
negatory by the constitution. How, then, can the 
President and Senate alone make or wage a war? 



' The law of Texns, including in her claim more 
than she actually occupied, doubtless originated very inno- 
cently in the folio"ving section of the compact by Santa An- 
na with President Burnet in 1S36, agreeing solemnly that 
Texas sliould extend not only to the mo\ith of the Rio del 
Norte, but thence to it.s source: 

".5tli. That the following be, and the same are hereby, es- 
tablished and made the lines of demarcation between the two 
republics of Mexico and of Texas, to wit: The line shall 
commence at the estuary or mouth of the Rio Grande, on 
the western bank thereof, and shall pursue the same bank 
up the said river, to the point where the river assumes the 
name of the Rio Bravo del Norte, from which point it shall 
proceed on the said western bank to the head waters, or 
source of said river— it being understood that the terms Rio 
Grande and Rio Bravo del Norte apply to and designate one 
and the same stream. From the source of said river, the 
principal h«ad branch bein^ taken to ascertain that source, 
a due north line shall be run until it shall intersect the boun- 
dary line established and described in the treaty negotiated 
by and between the government of Spain and the govern- 
ment of tlie United States of the Noith: which line was sub- 
sequently transferred to and adopted in tlie treaty of limits 
made between the government of Mexico and that of the 
United States; and from this point of intersection the line 
shall I.G the same as was made and established in and by 
the several treaties above-mentioned, to continue to the 
mouth or outlet of the Sahine river, and from thence to the 
Gulf of Mexico."— (See 2 Foofs His., 314, compact between 
Texas and Santa Anna in 1836 ) 

And some articles in the newspapers, very ablv written, 
in 1929, had also insisted, that the country- ceded and lost 
by us in 1S19. contained -225,000,000 of acres. Whereas the 
whole land claimed by Texjs, rightfully or wrongfully, and 
in actual possession or not, and whether too much or too 
little, IS only 203.320,000 acres according to the Olhcial map 
before u--. and that number of acres claiiiied in 18iQ, cannot 
be obt.iined without going to the utmost limit of the boun- 
daiies -s.n.-.' laid down on this mip, on the South and North 
and East a« well as V/est. 



and how ill-grounded are the fears that, by ratifying^ 
the treaty, the Senate compromises the country in 
hostilities? 

The Senate and President can form a treaty of 
alliance; but the country cannot, and will not, there- 
by be plunged into a war, unless Congress assent- 
So, on the other hand, they form a treaty of neu- 
trality or of peace, and yet the country will not 
and cannot be retained in a state of peace, if Con- 
gress pleases to declare war. — (See 4 Jefferson:'* 
Life, page 498.) 

At the utmost, in this case, the President and th* 
Senate cannot adopt any thing which does not exist; 
and, therefore, as only a liability exists to war» 
they can adopt but a liability, and not war itself; 
and that liability is neither just in itself, nor con- 
tenanced by the rest of the world. The utmost 
which the ratification accomplishes, even were 
the treaty operative without an act of Congress, ia 
to adapt or expose ourselves to the state of things 
which exists now between Mexico and Texas. 

We will soon endeavor to shojv that this state ia 
now but CONSTRUCTIVE war; that its actual renewal 
would be unjust; that the conducting of it, if as for- 
merly, is contrary to the law of nations; and hence, 
so far from assuming what is either dangerou.s oc 
just, we shall perform a national duty to interfere 
in this matter, by negotiation, and hazard some- 
thing if necessary, to prevent a recurrence of more 
such bloodshed, as well as restore tranquillity and 
durable peace to this quarter of the globe. 

Some have magnified the danger of war, and evert 
proclaimed it as war itself, that the President has or- 
dered a portion of our army and navy to the points 
which will be most exposed in case Mexico com- 
mences threatened hostilities against us, or the re- 
newal of old ones against Texas. 

But these movements are all v/ith a view to the 
preservation of peace, rather than the waging of 
war. They are precautionary and prudent, rathec 
than belligerent. The officers are in all cases 
expressly forbidden to engage in hostilities, but 
required merely to watch and report facts. The 
same was done in 1829, by General Jackson. — 
(See 2 Kennedy, 242, 265, and 276.) And in 
1837, by Mr. Van Buren, and at the East on the 
disputed territory, as well as in Texas beyond 
the Sabine, The chief difference is, that in this 
case, more forbearance arid caution appear, and 
not a single line of boundary is allowed to be crossed, 
nor a gun fired, without authority of Congcess, nor 
a single dollar of new expense incurred. — (See the 
official document.) In 1810 we had the first editioa 
of this cry of war, for marching troops. That was 
a much stronger case; for Mr. Madison theft 
marched troops into a disputed territory, and usedl 
force to get possession of it. He was met with the 
same complaint of war and assumption of the powers 
of the two Houses. 

Mr. Horsey, one of the ablest federalists, -ex- 
claimed: i 

"Sir. what is the nature and import of this proclamation^' 
In my humble conception — both legislative and wa.T~wai-^< 
because it directs the occupation of this territory by a mili-- 
tary force. The regular troops of the United' States are# 
orderiid to march, and aid the militia if necessary. 

"Leghlntii'e, by-annexing it to Orleans territory."- (SeM 
Nat. Int. 1st January, 1810.) 

But no impeachment was ever presumed on for 
that or other supposed misbehavior, except that:. 
James Madison, the great expounder and prticti- 
tioner, under the constitution in our most try— . 
ing times, was, by Cyrus King, denounced as, m hia ' 



DliPUGA TF"] 



18 



estimation, deserving a halter; and by Jo&iali duiocy, 
who, 1 believe, obtained one vote, solitary and alone, 
in favor of his impeachment. 

The use of the army and navy by the executive, 
jn time of peace, may often expose the country to 
war; but it is not, and cannot be, a declaration of war 
on our part, as that can only be made by Congress. 
True, in 1831, the administration sent a part of the 
navy around the globe, and attacked and burnt a 
town at the antipodes; but it was not a declaration 
of war; on the contrary, it was provident protection 
in peace of our citizens and their commerce. And 
though it might have been'deemed by others a cause 
of war on us, and a matter of impeachment here, as 
was threatened, yet it was, in truth, none the less 
jight and justifiable, both under our own constitu- 
tion and the laws of nations. I advised it then, and 
gave the order, and would do it again, under like cir- 
cumstances. 

The next and the most alarming objection, with 
many, to its being our duty to take the cession of 
Texas is, that we are thus astnuningan actual Vv-ar, 
or are in danger of becoming involved in actual hos- 
tilities. If this were the truth, it would then surely 
behoove us not to risk these without counting the 
cost, or finding, after careful examination, that our 
duty to take the cession was, under ail the circum- 
stances, paramount to all such dangers. 

Though war be undoubtedly a great calamity, 
standing by itself, yet it is often much preferable to 
dishonor; is often expedient for self-preservation; 
and, at times, is demanded by the highest obliga- 
tions of national honor and duty. 

Let us, then, first see whether the danger to which 
we are exposed, by taking the cession, has hereto- 
fore been deemed sufficient to prevent our taking it. 
In 1825, Spain and Mexico were at war, and the 
former in actual possession of the most important 
fortress of the country; and in 1829 poured her 
troops into Mexico in flagrante hello. And that state 
of things viras even urged by our government as an 
additional inducement to Mexico tdone to cede Tex- 
as, rather than regarding it, as would seem now, an 
insuperable obstacle to a proper cession without the 
consent of both belligerents, or without our becoming 
involved in hostilities, which it may not be our duty 
to risk. 

Some seem to doubt the existence of as much war 
then as now, and would thus break the great and 
acknowledged force of these tvi'O cases, as precedents 
directly in point. 

But how are the recorded facts.' 

Beside many statements in the public press, cited 
by the senator from Mississippi, showing the actual 
-\\iM then, there are many other proofs. 

Mr. Clav May lOih, 1825, while negotiating, 
exhorted Russia to make Spain acknowledge 
the independence of her colonics, and restore peace, 
instead of the war then known to be raging. He 
threatened that otherwise the provinces should 
send privateers on the coast of Spain, and capture 
Cuba, "towards terminating the existing contest be- 
tween Spain and her colonics." — (Blount, 83 p.) He 
■urged the Emperor to lend his aid towards the ''con- 
clusion oj the war between Spain and her colonies." — 
(Letter to Middleton, 89 p., Aug. 27, 1825.) The 
castifc of Ulloa-=-//te key of Mexico — was then in pos- 
session of Spain; and yet no forbearance nor objec- 
tions were then entertained on account of the claims, 
interests, or complaints of Spain. 

Further than this: how stood the ca.se in 1829? Then, 
our Secretary speaks of the particularly threatening 



attitude of Spain, and the "policy to part with a por- 
tion to obtain means to defend the residue.— (p. 15, 
House Doc, No. 40, Sept., 1837.) The Presi- 
dent not only admitted the existence of actual 
war with Spain in September, 1829, (Niles's Regis- 
ter, 71,) but our government, beside the above argu- 
ment, founded on the existence of hostilities, de- 
spatched a naval force to the coast of Mexico to pro- 
tect our commerce during the war. And the Mexi- 
can Secretary of State subsequently, in a public 
annunciation, made it a topic of complaint against 
the United States, that our administration, under the 
distractions and perils of their conflict with Spain, 
or, to use his own words, while engaged "in repel- 
ling the Spanish invasion, had pushed for a cession 
of "Mexico, under the hope that Mexico v>'ould then 
part wit!) Texas more readily." — (See the document 
in Adams's speech in National Intelligencer of 19th 
.July, 1838.) Yet no apprehension of being involved 
in a war then obstructed our negotiations, and was 
deemed sufficient to obviate our duty to obtain the 
cession. Norwas any apprehension then felt that our 
duty was violated by taking the cession from Mexico 
during an actual war with Spain, and eight to ten 
years before the latter made any recognition of , the 
independence of the former. Nothing was commu- 
nicated to Spain asking her consent; no offer was 
made to her of compensation; nothing deprecated 
as to her hostility. 
• And who ever then heard, as now, that a purchase 
from Mexico would be perfidious towards unof- 
fending Spain? a breach of the solemnity of our 
treaties with her? oran exposure of ourselves to the 
condemnation of the civilized world, as grasping 
and ambitious? 

But aside from these precedents, shewing the 
sense of duty which urged onward to this acquisi- 
tion both Messrs. Adams and Clay, as well as 
Jackson and Van Buren, notwithstanding the actu- 
al war then raging, it may be well to ascertain 
whether any actual war exists now, as well as 
whether one has of late been waged in a manner to 
justify its longer continuance, either against Texas, 
or any power that may become allied to her. All 
the categorical as.sertions, that an actual war has 
been carried on by Mexico, for eight years past, 
and with great vigor and success, (Mr. Choate,) 
and in a humane form beyond even that pursued 
usually by either England or France, are disprovec^ 
not only by the ministers of Texas, entitled by 
their stations to full credence, but by Mr. Webster 
himself, in his gi-ave official character as Secretary 
of State. 

Let us read what he, as well as they, state on 
the point of an actual war during that eight years: 

"From the time of the battle of San Jacinto, in April, 1836, 
to the pre.sent moment, Texas had exhibited the same ex- 
ternal signs of national indejiendence as Mexico herself, 
and Willi quite as much stability of government. Practical- 
ly free aud independent, acknowledged as a political sov- 
ereignty by the principal powers of the worW, no hostile 
foot finding rest within her territory for six or sevon years, 
and Mexico herself refraining lor all tlwi period from any 
further attempt to re-establisli h«^r own authority over that 
territory."— (Webster, July 1, If 42, io Thompson.) 

Yet, in the face of this, thf senator from Massa- 
chusetts [Mr. Choate] sjxiaksofthe "tremendous 
vigor with which Mexio had carried on the war;" 
and "her effective success;" and her "armed occu- 
pation" of Texas. 

Again, Mr. Webster says, after the battle of 
St. Jacinto, "T/ie war was from that time at an end." 

In another letter, (of April 5, 1842, Webster te 



19 



Thompson, 4th Senate Document,No. 325, in 1842, 1 
page 13,) he says: 

"No elt'ort for the subjugation of Texas has been made 
by Mexico from the time of tiie battle of St. Jacinto, on the 

•ilstAi"il l'-'-' '"I'll f.i,. ,-mMT,i,.n>-,Miifni oftlie present 

year; ' " ,, ; ■ < . f i. uiaintaincd an 

indej'r. .1-0, and made 

treati! - i .i kept aloof all 

Agam Mr. Webster says to Mr. Thomson, 31st 
July, 1843: 

"It iscont-v :, i ... .:.... ,i|., Ml t.. I,. .M-.."''*" 

IS A MOI K. m ......! . ,.; Mr 

distant, i:nle'; ' ' '• ' ' 'i ' x. ■ 

orshallsliou l-,< ■ ; . ' ■' :, .'.;...'' /'.'r ;.'■(!/- 
\wUli rcsjiccltjitc /unci." 

^ Fhially, 22d June, 1842, Mr. WclistertoThomp- 
ison, says: "Nothing is more probable than that the 
retieiocd of the war between Mexico and Texas, 
'wou]d,"&c. 

He states "the President's clear and strong con- 
viction that the war is not only v.f^clfsf;, but hopeless, 
without uiUihiiiblr obJcL't; injurious to both partic.'^, 
and likely to be, in its contiiuuuice, annoijins: and vex- 
atious to other connnerLial naiiou;::.'" 

This is quite enoiii';li from one Se<'ret;u-y, and he 
the senator's political friend, to ;ihow the impotent, 
and irregular, ami censurable character of the lio.stil- 
ities as designed Ibr any rcconqucst. Similar were 
the views of his successor. 

Mr. Upshur to Mr. Thompson, 27th July, 1843, 
says, also, that "the present hostilities are not regular 
and hardly civilized; tend only to harass and not 
subdue. Mexico should assert and maintain her 
supremacy, or generously abandon the claim." 

"She has a right to reconquer, but her right must 
be enforced scasonubly, or be abandoned for the peace 
and cunnncrce of the rest of the world." 

The views of the Texian authorities correspond 
with this: "Never, since eighteen hundred and thir 
ty-six, has Mexico attempted anything of the char- 
acter of a general invasion of Texas, or conducted 
the war upon any plan calculated to test the superi- 
ority of the two nations upon the field of battle, and 
bring the war* to a close by the arbitrament of arms." 
— (Confidential document, 12th and 15th pp.) 

How justly, then, can it be said: 

"Scarce a hostile foot, even from Mexico, pi-ofaned hor 
soil, from JbGtJ, wlien Santa Anna publicly stipulated will) 
her to end the war, to \3i-2." 

This, if no more, was to be expected, after his 
pledges and compacts. The express engEigement 
made by Santa Anna, May 18th, 1836, to put an 
end to the war, and obtain the recognition of her in- 
dependence by Mexico, is at length in Niles's Re- 
gister, 414 p., for Aug., 1836.— (2 Kennedy, 233.) 
See his reasons for it, in his letter to Houston and 
conversation here. — (Niles's Register, 9th, and 23 
A p., 1842.) The compliance with it sijice, so far as 
regards any regular war, or one in any degree com- 
petent or designed for a reconquest, is the only apol- 
ogy he can have for not surrendering himself and 
his troops again to Texas, for a failure by Mexico 
to fulfil the rest of it. Honor and morality forbid 
his conduct in not returning, unless he intended vir- 
tually to end the war, in pursuance of his engage- 
ment. 

The declarations made by him in this city confess 
all this. So those made after his reaching home, and 
when free from any suspicion of fear or duress, con- 
firm the same aspect of the case. In a letter which 
he addressed to General Jackson, dated at Colum- 
bia, Texas, July 4, 1836, he says: 



'When I offered to treat with this government, I wascon- 

riitD'fl rhi:t ,7 was nseliss for Mexico to continue the war. f 

/(■.'' r .,.<. ,.. ; ,7,;,.. ,,.,,;;,.;,. ^ •■ ii< : i i'r^ l!:c country, which I 

i'/ , . . I I . i.Ki much zeal for 

til- • .. • : ■■ '■' '■'■ ■'•r.yi^i'r.vr which i« 



to ler/iiinatc liiis ijueitionby jwlitical nc^otiiiiioii.'' 

During the eight years past, and especially withifl 
the last two, at times, there have br. n a paper war 
and marauding; and, to put an i n-l in I'lc irregulair- 
and occasional incursions thai Ikim' sdnniimes hap- 
pened during that period, an armistice has been pro- 
posed by Mexico, which, being exceptionable in ita 
terms, is reported never to have been ratified by 
Texas. So that the question (whether it may be 
aided by^ an armistice, which admits a temporary 
peace, and, in the case between Holland and Spain, 
lasted twelve years, and was succeeded by a dura- 
ble peace; or may be embarrassed by it, as some 
suppose, by its implying the existence of a previous 
war) is probably free from this difficulty; and if 
Texas is taken by us now, we take with her neither 
an existing war nor probably any existing armLc- 
tice.- 

The documents communicated to us lately, show 
that the artnistice, so much talked of, has never been 
ratified by the two goverimients; and it is evident 
that no regular war existed, to be suspended by qb. 
armistice. 

The Texian ministers, speaking of the supposes! 
armistice, say: 

"The negotiations having thus terminated, and this agree- 
ment lieing held to l)e null and void, there is at present no 
subsisting arrangement of any character between Mexic<B 
and Texas." 

Oiu- own minister at Mexico entertains the same 
views: 

■■Mkxic). Feb. -.2, 1S.14, 

"T am informCil ll; t i'' m i;.iri;ition with Texas forpeace, 
is not only broken oli, I ui tl.ui the armistice has also beea 
suspended. Vou will rcnieinlier that, from the beginning 
of this matter, I expressed the opinion that nothing wouM 
come of it. It was only a device on the part of Santa Anna 
to relieve him from the diflicully in which he had involved 
liimself by his threats and promises of reconquering Texas, 
which he knows perfectly well is impossible. There may 
l>e oilier marauding forays, like that of General Well, re- 
treating more r;i|>;iily than they advanced. But as to any 
legular and reasonably sufficient force invading the coun- 
try, the thing is inipos'il)le, and will not be attempted. 
They cannot raise money to sujiport such an army two 
months. 

",Vfy opinion is, notwithstanding all their vaporing an<I 
gasconade, that the most agreeable thing to Santa Anna 
would be an authoritative interposition of our government 
to put an end to the war, as he would then say that we were 
too strong for them to contenil with." 

An arnii.-t;ce, when made by governments, and 
not military men as this was, acknowledges the sep- 
arate national existence and rights of each, and thus 
virtually surrenders the point in controversy. Suck 
was that with Holland and Spain. 

To make any state of things a war for the pur- 
pose of reconquest, it must be with a will and a force 
adequate to the object, or apjiarently so. It musC 
be something beside proclamations, and the occa- 
sional murder of non-combatants and piratical plun- 
dering, it must be public/orce, and not, as Cowper 
says, words, or "« dueihi the form of a dibalc.'''' 

Grotius (book 1, chapter 1, page 38) defines war, 
from Cicero, to be "a dispute by force." Kn^ 
though custom may call the state or disposition w 



20 



remonstrances against it from the rest of the world 
as exist in the present case. I will select only three 



use force a war, yet common sense seems to look 
to the act of force as alone real war. 

But the entire cessation of hostilities from 1836 to | or four cases. 
1842, and the occasional, as well as contemptible in- ' In 1685, after several years of revolution in Hol- 
cursions since, indicate the abandonment of any ' land against Spain, and only five years after the 
war of reconquest, and are not that species of hos- j declaration of independence by the former, dueen 
tilities, wliich, in their character, keep up a claim | Elizabeth, by a treaty, loaned money and troops t» 
of right, or can be recognised on any principles of j aid her, and took a cession in mortgage of several 
national law, as precluding other nations to consider i towns and fortresses to indemnify her. This was 

"^ ' ' ' 1 . - . r-. . ^^^ 

after 
Spain chose to involve her in the general 
waging, when none could, probably, avail anything | war, on this or any other account. — (See 2 Davis's 
of good to Mexico, and when none have occurred at i History of Holland, 175 and 235.) 
all adequate to reconquest for near half a generation, j Again, in 1658, Dunkirk was conquered from 
If, as the senator from Missouri correctly stated Spain by France and England, and given to the lat- 



nationai law, as preciuQing otner nations to consider i towns and fortresses to indemnify her. This \ 
Texas, both de jure and de facto, a sovereign State, sixty-three years before their independence was 
Much less are we likely, by a union with Texas, I knowledged by Spain: and it was five years a 
to be involved in actual hostilities, when none are I that before Spain chose to involve her in the gen« 



on the 1st instant, Mexico is utterly unable to con- 
quer Texas, (the opposite opinion from that ex- 
pressed by the senator from Massachusetts,) if an 
invader would, by her own resources, be driven 
like chaif before the whirlwind, and a defeat of him 
be deemed a mere holyday, pray inform me what kind 



ter. In 1662, October 17, it was ceded by Charles 
II to Louis XIV by treaty, and by the 8th article it 
was stipulated, that if the King of Spain, from 
whom it was taken "by right of arms," should try 
to regain it in two years, England was to furnish "a 
considerable fleet" to defend it, but none after two 



of a petty, wretched, uncertain war do we risk by ' years. — (1 Collection of Treaties, p. 121.) And 
uniting with Texas? and how little it should stand I did the aid ever become necessary? 
in the way of our high duty to take the cession? Again, in 1712, Denmark, in a war with Sweden, 
What kind of a contemptible war do we assume or took the Duchy of Bremen and Verden from the 
risk, either in this way, or by presenting any con- ' latter, who had held it under a treaty since 1648, 
stitutional aid if invaded, while the ratification of ' and sold and ceded it to the Elector of Hanover, 
the treaty is pending? Who believes any such in- : who was then George I of England, and who held 
vasion will be attempted, now or liereafter, when I it without Sweden ever presuming to make it a cause 
so disastrous will be the consequences to Mexico — | of war with Hanover or England. — (2 vol. Puflfer- 
even by Texas alone? dorfs Summary, p. 202, 246, 256-8.) 

The danger in the path of our action is, not j Lastly, and directly in point, Guatemala was 
only uncertain, remote, and small, but it is of a acknowledged independent in 1824, under the name 
mere constructive war, that has been prosecuted | of "United Provinces of Central America." Chia- 
without just cause, and which both France and Eng- | pus, which had before belonged to Guatemala, chose 
land, as well as ourselves, have informed her ought j to act independent of Guatemala, and against her 
not to be prosecuted longer. England, since consent, at length offered to unite with Mexico, 
1840, has been under obligations by a treaty of me- and was admitted, and remains there. This was in 
diation with Texas to procure an abandonment of 1835. — (Seep. 113 and 117, 2 Ken.) So in private 
the claims of Mexico. Mr. Pakenham, April 19th, ! life, and by the common law, a party in possession 
1844, in confidential Doc, No. 8, says: ] of land can convey and deliver it properly, without 

"It is a well-known fact that her (Great Britain's) most 1 imputations of fraud and conspiracy, as lavished 
zealous exertions have been directed towards the comple- [ here, and outstanding claims by third persons 
tion of that independence by obtaining its acknowledgement j^^^gj j^e abandoned, or peacefully prosecuted again.st 
at the hands ol the onlj- power by which it was seriously ., • j . t i\/f .• i i 

disputed " } f j j i ,jjg j^g^ occupant and trespasser. In Martin, b. 1, 

n ', u 1 .- r T- „ „ t- v,„ I c- 1, and b. 8, c. 5, the true doctrine is laid down. 

But why such zealous exer ions for Texas, it she ^j^^^'^ g^^^^ j^ ^,.^^ ^;^j sovereign, if it governs itself 



was not right? Again Lord Aberdeen says: 

"We (Great Britain) put ourselves forward in pressing 
the government of Mexico to acknowledge Texas as inde- 
pendent."— (Letter 2nth December, 184.3, ditto 40th page ) 



ereign, .. .. ;, 

and acknowledges no superior but God. Then 
others may not only acknowledge such a State as 
sovereign and independent, but take grants of terri- 
tory from it, and even aid it, if its cause is just, and 
it is in possession. The opposite party will usually 
complain; and, unless policy forbid, will at times 
seek to recover the land, or retaliate; bat seldom, 
if ever, in protracted troubles like this. If Texas 
i had injured us, and refused redress, since her inde- 



Why press Mexico to abandon her cause 
was correcL' 

If Mexico, then, will not abandon any thought 
of further hostilities — if she will not listen to the 
advice of forei|n power to acknowledge Texian in- 
dependence — if she persists obstinately in disturb- 
ing the peace and commerce of the rest of the world pendence was recognised in 1837, could we not 
in the Gulf of Mexico and its neighborhood— if she rightfully have made war on her, and, if conquering, 
chooses to rely on the logic rf kings, the xiltima ratio \ hold her territory, if possible, as against Mexico 
regum, rather than the'judgment of the chief pow- and the whole world? Surely. And this settles 
ersof the civilized world,— it will not be our fault, the whole question of the rff JHrc right of cession 
but hers, if any further hostilities ensue. The for- | or transfer; for conquest is only one mode of trans 
tune of war must then be ours, and craven, indeed, ; fer, rightfully, by the law of nations. We have 
-would be our spirit to flinch from it. I obtained indemnity from her by one treaty since 

But if we turn a moment to the history of the I 1836, and established even boundaries with her by 
past, we shall find that nations generally have not I another. But how this has been done with her 
made cessions in a time of war by the party in full ! rightfully, ami not Mexico, if Mexico is the de jure 
possession — a ground of war upon the purchaser; | government, it would be difficult to explain, 
and much less have they been accustomed to do it i Regarding the, territory of Texas as conquered 
after such intervals of hostility— such protrttctcd ; by its pei^ple from Mexico, which some do, then 
feebleness in the contest— such numerous and high , their sovereignty to it is completed by the !ullas8etl 



21 



of its population; and their cession is A'alid by a 
like assent of them as well as their government. — 
(2 Biirlemaqne, p. 309.) 

In war, the title of all property seized on either, 
side is considered to be in the actual possession; 
and, if afterwards sold to a third person, or 
third power, the title passes, and it passes beyond 
recovery, if of movabici; and if of immovaljlcs, 
cannot be regained, unless by consent, or unless the 
original owner chooses to risk for it war, (1 Burle- 
maque, 297,) and succeeds in the war.— (2 Whea- 
ton,269.) 

Nor is it any breach of treaty with Mexico to 
take such a cession, in such a case. It is the ri^ht 
and usage of nations to do it. They must deal with 
Texas as a de jure as well as de facto government — 
as of full age, and possessing in the family of na- 
tions equal rights and power with other nations. 
The doctrine jits posHminu does not apply un- 
less the original owner gets into possession, (2 
Wheaton, 112;) and a "modification of the rule 
may be required in practical application" even then, 
if a civil revolution is mixed up. — (Grotius, b. 3, 
ch. 6, sec. 4.) But there is no breach of treaty, 
there being no guaranty of territory in any of our 
treaties with Mexico, though once our ministers 
were instructed to make such a guaranty to Spain j 
of her territories west of the Mississippi. Yet it is i 
coinpetent for Mexico to make the cession and union ' 
of Texas with us, until her claims are relinqui.shed, 
a cause of hostilities towards us; though, under all 
the circumstances of the riglit of the contest, being i 
in Texas, as before explained, it is )iot a just cause. 
Where a revolt has occurred, audits independence 
been acknowledged, third powers may treat it, 
when in possession of separate sovereignty, as in- 
dependent in all respects; and if former masters 
coinplain, it is without cattse. So it is competent 
to aid. such power while ni "possession of inde- 
pendence," as we must if uniting with Texas; but 
if the secession be unjust, the old masters may com- 
plau), and resort to force, "as policy or anger may 
prompt," but not if secession .be just. — (Martin's 
Law of Nations, p. 80, b. 3, ch. 2, sec. 10.) 

But though exposed in such case to some belliger- 
ent hazards, they are usually encountered when, 
duty prompts; and much more readily if the hazards, 
as here, are remote, doubtful; founded, as here, in 
injustice, on the part of the ancient claimant, and 
prosecuted in a barbarous and unjustifiable manner. 

Let me not be misunderstood. In one aspect of 
the case, as all the territory of Texas is ceded, and 
her government united with ours, we may be held 
jointly responsible for all that Texas is m)w liable 
to severally. 

I am free to admit that, though actual hostilities 
do not now exist, and of course will not now be as- 
sumed by us if uniting with Texas, yet Mexico 
can obstinately persist in claiming her allegiance 
forever — may refuse to recognise her independence 
for centuries, and tlireaten everlasting war. But 
before actually recommencing hostilities, she will 
be likely to look a little to public opinion and her 
true policy, under all the facts of the case, and will 
probably come to the conclusion, that a war, re- 
viewed after all the circumstances just recapitulated, 
can hardly be deemed a jiist war, or receive any 
countenance from the intelligence and civilization 
of the rest of the world. It is certainly preferable 
jibtto come in collision with any nation, under any 
pietensions, however ill-founded, if they can be 
overcome by reasonable remonstrance or friendly 



solicitation. But if all these have been exhausted 
in vain by us and the leading powers of Europe, to 
persuade Mexico to recognise the independence of 
Texas, the safety of international intercourse and 
the claims of humanity will compel the rest of the 
world to perforni their duties to others, and sustain 
their own national rights. 

Under all the circumstances, then, we not only 
possess rights to secure our frontiers more effectually 
in both peace and war, and protect our institutions 
and commerce from all disturbances; but it is our 
duty to do it when voluntary and amicable oportu- 
nities exist, and we should beside be justly exposed 
to severe censure, as the leading power on the 
American continent, if we longer neglect to extend 
more decisive influence in favor of a weaker, and 
wronged people, our neighbors and kin; and to in- 
terpose effectually to put an end to inhuman aggres- 
sions upon them, and to restore peace, commerce, 
and civilized conduct on the theatre of the new 
world . ' 

The rules of national law are clear on this point; 
and in the first place, as to the interposition for stop- 
ping a contest, which has been conducted with in- . 
iiumanity. 

I fearlessly assert, that if the condition of ' 
things which has existed since 1836, is to be digni- 
fied by the name of a public war, between Mexico . 
and Texas, it has been conducted in such a preda- 
tory and uncivilized manner, that if, by a friendly 
union with Texas, we became exposed to it, and it 
is renewed, we shall perform a great public, chris- > 
tian, and international duty by thus taking it on ourr ' 
selves and ending it. ' 

Mixed up with this, is often the consideration, 
tliat the contest has been carried on so long as to 
disturb too much the peace, commerce, and interests 
of the rest of the world; and in this way, tends not 
only to tJie gradual destruction of one or both of the 
belligerents; but sacrifices the mutual rights of others 
to free trade and tranquillity, and makes them vic- 
tims to foolish obstinacy on the part of the comba- 
tants. 

This is unreasonable, and may, by compacts be- 
tween other nations, or the niagn.ar.iuioiis impulses 
of one, be ended if jtiacticable. 

Let us first listei; to what Cliancclior Kent says 
against such ini.s'iclKLvicn- in war: In J Kent's Com. 
90, he denounces, «.>< contrary to national law, the 
"making slaves of prisoners." — (Cites Grotius for 
this and Montesquieu, as saying "that the laws of 
war gave no other power over a captive than to keep 
him safely,") So page 91 — plunder of private prop- 
erty on land is forbidden in war; and especiaJly yon 
are "not to disturb the cultivators of the soil.^'' 

Hear Mr. Webster, also, on that point, (in Doc. 
10, confidential,) in his letter to Thompson, part of 
which I have before cited for another purpose: 

"You will tjike occasion to converse with the Mexican 
Secretary, in a friendly manner, and represent to him how 
greatly it w oulil coutrilmte to the advantage as well as the 
honor of Mexico, to abstain altogether from predatory in- 
cursions and other similar modes of warfare. Mexico has 
an undoubted right to resubjugate Texas, if she can, so far 
as other States are concerned, by the common and lawful 
means of war. But other States are interested^and espe- 
cially the tJnited State-, a near neighbor to both parties, are 
interested— not pnly in the restoration of peace betweenthem, 
but also in the manner in which the war shall' be conducted, 
if it shall continue. These suggestions may suffice for what 
you are requested to say, amicably and -kindly, to the Mex- 
ican secretary, a,tprt;sent;, but I jnay add, for" your inforni- 
ation, that it is. in the contemplation' bf this government to 
remonkrale in a, k.ork formal manner with^Uexico, at a pe- 
riod not far distant, unless sihe shall con^fpto make peace 



22 



■K'ith Texas, or shall show the disposition and ability to 
prosecnte the war with respectable forces." 

Let me explain how the remonstrance in a 
■more f<yrnial manner against the Turkish mode of 
waging war in Greece upon women and children, 
farmers and vineyards, in 1827, (427,) was conduct- 
ed by the great European powers. It was by lay- 
ing the English, French, and Russian fleets along- 
side of the semi-barbarians, from whose decks the 
javaging troops had been disgorged, and blowing up 
and otherwise destroying 4 sail-of-the-line, 15 frigates, 
i5 corvettes, 9 brigs, 3 fire-ships, and numerous 
transports; being the whole Ottoman fleet of near 100 
vessels, and a loss of human life unprecedented in 
Biaritime contests. — (2 Blount, 428. ) 

Hear Mr. W. again on the right for us to inter- 
fere: 

Indeed, although the right or the safety of none of their 

- -•■'•—- -" ""nocrncd, yet if, in a war waged'be- 

I- ',i!, i!ii lilliii;^, enslaving, or cru- 

'.I ' . 1 .:i!-rd, the United States 

I ,.^11 as their rigftt, to re- 

'. . w\i.\.'' siicli a departure from 

J, lit) and civili/atioQ. These princi- 

iiriples, essential alike to the welfare 

1 l!ie preservation of which all nations 

, ond interests. But their duty to in- 

rative, in cases a/i'ectiug their own citi- 



ewn citizens 
Sween two ne 
eily treating > 
■SFOuld feel it 
anonstratc a:; 
Xhp. prill. ■:.. . 
pies aiv ... 
s>\ all i.:r « 
l».aTe, tin;, . ' • 
terfere beco;ii 



"It is, therc.'bi-e. that the govf 
protests against the hii'vK-hip^ 
Santa Fe p"risoners hav.' ' . •" -\ 
this treatment in the ;i; ■ •: i; 
tions: in the 



»nt of the United States 
onii'ltie^ to which the 

•<' I i' I. rotests against 
. ,, the law of na- 
il' . !!: i!it' name of civ- 



Slization, and the spirit ol tlie age: in liie luiine of all repub- 
lics; in the name of liberty herself, enfeebled and dishon- 
ored by all cruelty and all excess; in the name and for the 
lienor of tliis whole hemisphere; it protests emphatically 
and earnestly against practices belonging only to barbarous 
people, in barbarous times. 

"Every nation, on being received, at her own request, 
into the circle of civilized governments, must understand 
Shat she not onlv atteins rights of sovereignty, nvd the 
niignity of national character, but that she binds herself 
also to the strict and faithful observance of all those prin- 
ciples, laws and usages, which have obtained cun-ency 
among civilized states, and which have for their object the 
mitigatiou of the miseries of war."— (Webster, April 5, 

"\o community can be allowed to enjoy the benefit of 
national character in modern times, without submitting to 
all the duties which that character imposes. A Christian 
people who exercise sovereign power, who make treaties, 
Esaintain diplomatic relations with other States, and who 
should yet refuse to conduct its military operations accord- 
ing to the usages universally observed by such states, 
would present "a character singularly inconsistent and 
anomalous.'"— (Webster, April .5, 1342.) 

Let us stop, then, if possible, by this alliance with 
Texas, the ferociou.'s and cruel course of Mexico; her 
barbarous warfare on women and children; the 
letting loose of Indian butchery and conflagration; 
{he assaults by a convict banditti for plunder; the 
shooting, in cold blood, of prisoners of war, or im- 
Kiuring then in dungeons and chains. I would re- 
wiember that Lord Chatham appealed to the very 
Japcstry on llie walls of Parliament to frown on 
llhem for an indulgence in any such barbarous prac- 
tices, as the portrait of the father of his country, on 
that wall, would now frown on us, if we justified 
such practices. 

Belligerents have no right to ask from neutrals 
respect to belligerent conduct, unless it be of a 
Christian character, and such as is tolerated by the 
laws of civilized nations. But, on the contrary, 
they are justified in an armed neutrality, or in 
leagues, or alliances, to put an end to such inhu- 
manities, as well as to their longer disturbance of the 
sympathies, commerce, and peace of other nations. 
But enoughAj to the principles, applicable to 



such a case, which justify us in risking even war if 
necessary to end these outrages. But I regret that 
one senator [Mr. Choate] has denied the existence 
of such atrocities on the part of Mexico, and has 
treated her as a most republican and "imo^mffitif " 
power.* 

I;ideed, sir, Mexico has been eulogized as a na- 
tion that has carried on a constant and humane 
war with Texas; and, at the same time, with much 
skill and success. What, sir.' The success of eight 
millions of people against one-third of a minion;and, 
after seven years, have not regained a single acre of 
land; but lost armies and chiefs by capture, and im- 
plored the clemency and release of them from the 
handful of lion hearts and eagle eyes and brave 
arms which, nerved by freedom, have stood up 
valiantly against oppression till the present moment! 

But let us see how the facts accord witii that sena- 
tor's views. The evidence as to the moral and 
civilized conduct of Mexican warfare, as described 
by Mr. Van Zandt oflicially, and whose high and 
recognised station here entitles him to full credence, 
is this: 

"Mexico has been depredating upon the properly of our 
exposed and defenceless frontier, murderiirg the inhabitants 
in cold bloiiii, or hirciiii: thera away into a loathsome and too 
often fatal o i iti\ .i\ , imitiag the numerous tribes of hostile 
Indians, w Im n -;.(.■ ilmi'jj our northern frontier, to plunder 
our exposeil Mttii.iiMiit.-. stimulating them to the most cruel 
and barbarous massacies and inhuman butcheries even of 
our defenceless women and children, and to commit every 
excess of savage warfare." — (Con. Doc, pp. 12, 15., Van 
Zandt to Upshur.) 

Listen, next, on the facts, to Mr. Webster. In a 
letter to Mr. Thompson, he speaks of (31 January, 
1843) '■'■predcdorij incursions in which the proclama- 
tion and promises of the Mexican commander are 
flagrantly violated, con-combatants seized and de- 
tained as prisoners of war, and private property used 
and destroyed. Yet the senator from Massachu- 
setts [Mr. Choate] doubts all this, has no sympa- 
thy nor complaint for this, but eulogizes Mex- 
ico as humane, "unoffending," and successful 
— yes, humane! Though v/hen Mr. Thomp- 
son remonstrated with Mexico for predatory forays, 
&c., tiie minister virtually confessed the whole by 
vindicating it, in saying "f/ini ptisoners taken were 
not entitled to any of the privileges of prisoners of 
war; but that they were rebels, and would be so treat- 
ed," &c.— (10 p. Doc, Confidential, March 14, 
1843.) 

Hear Mr. Webster further as to the facts about 
some other prisoners: 

■■•i'li;' |H ;\ itioii. -.iiid i:,.li!.Mitirs t,. \\!iiiM\ they were sub- 
irci ■ ! ..Ml I 1 ,■ tli'.'ii ■1,11 'li ni I ■„ .1 i.l,uii 111,! miles" to the city 
111' ,\,r-..irri .1 111 ■ 111- .. .11 'ii'.i ■■:!• -■■ iMi i)f the year, were 
!j(inih:.'i I'l.l ililic ', ',\i.i-.' .Mil w.'ll I'-i'.lii'nticated, it would 
have bei-n incredible that they slioii d have been inflicted in 
this age, and in a coMn(7-)/ calling iud' Christian and civil- 
izfd. During many days they had no food,'and on others 



*Inthe debate, it was averred that the rights of conscience 
and religion had never been invaded by Mexico, and were 
similar \inder both governments, and protected in one as 
well as the other. With a view to correct this, and to show- 
that Mexico, if unoftbnding, is not exactly the bulwark of 
our religion, (at least of the Protestant i-eligion of the East.) 
I add an extract from the constitution of each on this 
subject: 

"iN"o preference shall be given by law to any religious de- 
nomination, or mode of worship, over another; but every 
per.son shall be pennittcd to worship God according to the 
dictates of his own consoicnre.'"—(Texian constitution, doc. 
41.0, p. 16, H. of Hep.,, June -Mth, 1836) 

'■The religion of the Mexican nation is, and will be per- 
petually, the Roman Catholic Apostolic. The nation will 
|irotect it by wise and just laws, and prohibit the exercise of 
liny other whatever."— (Me.iiican constitution, 2 Kennedy's 
History, p. 42-2.) 



23 



only two ears of corn were distributed to each man. To I ernor in Florida, claimed from us the enforcement of 
sustain life, therefore, thev were compelled to sell, on their jj^jg princinlfi 

^^them'^"t'';"""'tinj"tlfS?-' thc-'"^ ! Go^^^-^or Folch (December % 1810, 3 State Pa- 

creased the iiumV) uhi.'i thry ulr-a.h cTjhiriNriiom t'\]>o- 1 pers, 396) asks our aid to expel insurgents, as "tlj& 
sure to the cold. .Most .In iMiin) i.i ,ill. l;o\vi'\fT, s(\ era! oi | United States, who profess the exercise of equity, 



1,1; up 



ir; thrust into 
liuined to them 



them, disabled by sirLn- . :,n ! - ;:. r 

with the others, were -l> li : ;,.i ; 

cation. Those who >ii 1 

many ofthem afflictcl .viTi 1 I'l, •■ 

whose hf^alth was no'liroken down 1 

as the public law reiiuires, but in a 11 

dictive, and with a degree of severity 

usually invlicted by the miriiiipal ><•■ 

ized and Christian St n- ; 1; > :: mc 

appear to have been r:' i ■ ; ^ 

the same dunsieon with ", -^ 

in pairs, and when al!",. 

airof heaven, requiri.l, <- ■ .,,,.,,,. ,,, 1,,. 

bor, beneath the lash ()!:■ : ' ■■' ,..1 iin'ih- 

works of that country . ' 

Thousjh the senator from Massachusetts may I'.is- 
credit all the enormities so feelingly described I ly 
his friend, the late Secretary of State, and may think 
the hostilities to be now humane and successful, and 
Texas, if not protected or ceded to us, likely, ere 
long, to be reconquered by Mexico, can he, on re- 
flecUon, think of that event with so much apparent 
and unmingled satisfaction.' What, sir.' Our breth- 
ren and children, decoyed there by new and liberal 
colonization laws of Mexico, and then stripped of 

their privileges, their constitution violated, and their j lish. It is a proniin 
rights of conscience invaded, and their Saxon blood ! consult, not only the ' 
humiliated, and enslaved to Moor.5, Indians, and 1 nations," as an objei 
mongrels.^ When prisoners of war and non-com- ! 122,) but tl 
batants, are they to be plundered, shot, or imprison- | among the 



cannot exempt themselves from taking part with 
the party ^mjus!Iy oppressed.''^ In national, as well as 
personal conflicts, the duty of others to interpose, 
and ]irotect the weak and oppressed, is a principle 
of human n.nture. — (1 Martin's Law of Nations, p. 
.St). ) It is instinct. It is justified by reason; andsym- 
patliy carried into action in such cases tends to enno- 
ble our common origin and destination: and, if the 
case is one even of doubtful character, humanity 
turns the scales in favor of the weak. 

The relief must, of course, be rendered against 
the party in the wrong, as we have already showti 
Mexico to be — not only on the American prin- 
tiiMi'is of self-government, but on those of a just re- 



sistance to her arbitrary 
ized manner of her i':,, ' 
of most of ChristenU'.i ; 
conquer Texas. Tl;i' '' 
the latter only dt fcn.siX' . 
and forgets right, whil.' 
either autliority, prix i!i : 
as our fathers before ti,' 






'f 



and the uncivil- 
•;. and the opinion . 
rt'nrther effovts to 
I'cen aggres.sive — , 
rnicr feels power 
li. latter has never asked 
:, or treatment, but svich 
f(i!;L;l;i aiid bled to estab- 
i;:j. it in many treaties to 
ni'in iianquiility of both 
I Col. of Treaties, page 
ghts of iiumanity and civilizatioa 
St of the world. I am no alarmist, 
in dungeonshke felons, and compelled to labor j nor shall I contribute to any panic debate; but, in 
like slave's.' Is all Isis sympathy and patriotism to I my opinion, it is always the right, aiul at tunes the 
tell them, if disliking that, they may submit to the j duty, of every nation to interpose, not only urge the 
holy-alliance claims of Mexico, or take refuge un- 1 cessation from an unjust Vv-.u- like iluit of Mexico, 
der the power of England— recolonized to the power 1 but, if need be, to form treaties, arid supply troop.s 
their fathers defied, and resubjected to a monarchy j and means tor its su])jiressinn. I would dissuade 
and established church.? I do not profess to use his ! from interference like that of the Floly Alliaiice, to 
•words, but to show the tendency of his argument, j prevent a people from exercising tlie power of self- 
Will the senator from Missouri concur with him in government. I woulii justify no Copenhagen 
this view.' No, sir; no. In another part of his seizures of tlif vi -s^ U cf an unotl'cnding neutral. 
speech, the .senator.from M'nssachusetts admits that Nor would 1 \ , i .' - i^mt the worid to distant 
much blood is yet to be snift there. However near nations, to riil.i>s ijiiivuices concerning which 
the reconquest appears to 'him under so vigorous a our knowledge was linuted, and with which neither 
war of eight years by eight millions of people our interests nor tranquillity were much connected. 
against two or three hundred thottsand; and if much i This would, in some cases, as it has with England, 
more is to be so spilt, why ought not all of us to seek, 1 border on political quixotism. Buton my own con- 
by the ratification of this treaty, to prevent the ca- 1 tinent — on my own frontier — as to a people of my 
lamity and the unchristian stain of it on civilization, i own stock and faith — and ;\ territory once and for a 
as well as save our kin from the ignoble bondage, as ! whole generation n;y nwn — ! wuultl not hesitate 
I regard their resubjtigation, but the great bli-ssings, | to form a peaci-'f;;! a';!an. <■, and, il'i,-cd lie, to exer- 



he seems to consider them, of an 
by the/rce, enlightened, and wfifi/;. /I .'■■-- ','' a m ' 

But there are other view.s (if lac i ; . ; .. 
tions between Mexico and Texas, v. hnii k ma i i'.;c 
reannexation not only free from exposure to any 
actual or just war, but an act of high national duty 
for relief to a weak and oppressed neighbor. Thus 
it is repeatedly laid down by writers on national law, 
that nations mayproperly assist each other, when 
their rights are violated, whether, in consequence of 
such violation, they change the old rulers or old gov- 
ernment, or divide and declare a part independent. 
(Kent 24 p., Vattel B. 2, ch. 4, sec. 56.) 'Vattel 
hence approves "the case of the Prince of Orange 
as ajustlfwhle interference" in the affiiirs of England; 
and Kent says: 'The assistance that England gave 
to the United Netherlands, and the assistance that 
France gave to this country during the war of the 
revohitioii, loerejustijiabie «c?s, founded in wisdom and 
policy." And Spain herself, once, through her gov- 



use every nati 

.t.,kand oppr 

Lr> tua ('litre 



iti'ction to the 



itrca: saa.itor.s to recollect for a moment 
liow often this has been done, even by crowned 
heads, wlio.se tendency lias been more for war 
than republics; snd in ages less civilized even 
than this: and by as well as against some pow- 
ers who, in the very treaties, were so near ruder 
periods as, among other titles, to retain that of'Kin^ 
of the Goths and Vandals." 

Thus, as early as 1585 and 1591, are such treaties 
to be found in modern times. — (1 Chalmers's Trea- 
ties, and 3 Collection of Treaties.) In 1659, Febru- 
ary 3, a treaty was made between Richard Crom- 
well and Louis the 14th to mediate between Sweden 
and Denmark, and if these powers would not make 
peace, to hdp Sweden; and if France or England 
was, in consequence of it, attacked, they engaged to 
make their defence a common cause. — (3 Col. of Trea- 
ties.) Another of similar tenor "for obliging the 



24 



3iorthern kings to make peace," was entered into 
JVIay 21, 1659, by Fiance, England, and the united 
provinces. They were to use their fleets, if neces- 
sary, and to try, through their ambassader at Den- 
jnark and Sweden, to secure their commerce in the 
]Baltic free and undamaged. — (191 page.) Another 
on the 24th of July, lfi59, between England and 
the United Provinces, was "for inducing Sweden and 
I>enmark to make peace;" and whichever power 
did not consent to it in a fortnight, was to be in- 
duced by using their fleets against her; (197 p.) and 
another still was made August 16th, of the same 
yeas, between some of these powers "f or procuring 
a peace" between the others, by the employment of 
their navies in concert, if necessary. 

Elizabeth, by assistance to the Netherlands in 
•various vvays, helped to secure tlie triamph of the 
Protestant religion, and to build up the naval power 
«Df England, so as to triumph over Philip's invinci- 
h]e armada. She made a treaty of alliance with 
them near forty years before Spain acknowledged 
iheir independence. — (1 Chalmers, 123 p.) 

Again, in 1603, her successor, James the First, and 
Henry the 4ih of France, entered into a compact to 
jfnediate with Spain for the recognition of the inde- 
pendence of Holland, and in theevent, that the par- 
lies could not be reconciled on just terms, they made 
ihe important stipulation to aid the side least stub- 
Ibom, and aid each other, if assailed by Spain. — (1 
Col. of Treaties, 128 and 9.) ■ 

In 1668, (1 Col. of Treaties, 136,) a triple alli^ 
unce was made between Charles the Second of Eng- 
land, and Charles Second of Sweden, and the 
Netherlands. They professed to feel much grief at 
the calamities of the war which had involved most 
of Christendom; and provided that, if Spain would 
■/lot accede to what they thought reasonable terms, 
Jind end those calamities, they would take "more 
efficacious measures.'''' — (141 p.) If England ^r 
ilie Netherlands were attacked, the number of 
ships and troops to be mutually furnished was 
arranged; and the King of Sweden, on certain sub- 
sidies, was to assist;and if France proved unreasona- 
ble and stubborn, he was to "side with Spain, and 
make war against France." — (p. 145.) 

Can any of us forget, also, without more details 
as to earlier ages, the memorable alliance by France 
to aid us in 1778, when weak and oppressed, and 
■which, as before seen, the soundest writers on na- 
tional law have justified.' 

In 1825, (September 20th,) Mexico and Co- 
lombia made a similar treaty for mutual defence 
and independence, against Sptdn. — (26 and 29 Niles's 
Reg. p. 356.) 

And the celebrated Congress of Panama was pi-o- 
jected for a like purpose, among others. Indeed, by 
ihe last arrivals, the British writers in politics are, 
on this same principle, excusing the recent interfer- 
ence of England in favor of the people of Scinde, 
raid against its ameers or princes. Speaking of the 
latter, the Foreign (Quarterly Review for January, 
3844, says: "They were in reality tyrants; and, in 
delivering the inhabitants of Scinde from their yoke, 
■Vvc were performing good service to humanity," &c. 

No more signal instances exist in modern times 
of this interference of other powers to assist the op- 
yresstd and terminate protracted hostilities — inju- 
rious to the common interest of the world — than 
Ihose memorable ones, as to suffering Greece in 
3827; as to Belgium in 1831, and Turkey in the 
Syrian war by AH Pacha in 1832. 

Though some of the Holy Alliance were engaged 



in these humane enterprises, yet others united with " 

them; and the object of the whole, so far from being 
similar to that of the Holy Alliance, and hostile to 
changes of government by the people, was, in the 
case of Greece and Belgium, for protection under 
those changes, and to end a struggle which might 
be protracted and useless against them, as well as 
dangerous to the general peace of Europe. 

The former case was deemed one of so justifiable 
an interference here, as well as abroad, that "a uni- 
I versal burst of acclamation" is .said, by one of our 
I whig annalists, to have "hailed the first news of the 
I victory of Navarino, throughout civilized America 
j and Europe." And the distinct object then for the 
j movements of the allied powers, as shadowed forth 
in their treaty of July 6, 1827, was to restore peace 
to Europe; and, though the Greeks were considered 
by them to be in a state of revolt against their law- 
ful sovereign, yet they were desirous to protect them 
from destruction and the ravages of a barbarous 
system of warfare. — (3 Blount's Register, 228-9. 
6 do. 158.) 

In the case of Belgium, the five powers, England,, 
France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, agreed to a pro- 
tocol on the 4th of Nov. 1830, by which they required 
a cessation of hostilities on both sides, and a virtual 
1 recognition of the independence of Belgium. This 
was done, though the revolt had existed scarcely a 
single year. 

But the peace of much of the world was likely to 
be disturbed, and its industry and commerce most 
injuriously deranged; and hence they felt justified to 
interfere, and did interfere, even to aid the revolt- 
ers. Both England and France despatched their 
fleets to succor the weaker power; and as a check to 
the obstinacy of Holland, in still persevering to lay 
waste villages, and burn farm houses, they de- 
molished the citadel of Antwerp, after a bombard- 
ment one of the most remarkable in history. 

The other case was equally striking in some re- 
sjiects, having been an interference to protect the 
Mohammedan. Yes; the ,staveholding Turk against 
revolting subjects; many of whom, in Syria and 
Egypt, were Christians. 

England, Russia, and France, (all boasted Chris- 
tian powers, and so ardently enlisted m favor of 
abolition,^ united and mediated .not by words only, 
but Russia, by the bayonet and cannon, to shield the 
infidel slaveholder from the destruction, and restore 
peace in that quarter to Asia and Africa, as well as 
Europe. They looked to the rights of commerce and 
the tranquility of Christendom, and the great inte- 
rests of peace, rather than to creeds of belief or do- 
mestic institutions. 

So again in the case of the revolting Greeks; they 
united to aid even republicans and rebels under cer- 
tain conditions. 
After all this, shall we, the leading power on 
j the continent, see our Christian, as well as 
! republican brethren, in Texas, harassed longer by 
! barbarous hostilities; and, in a just cause, not sus- 
I Iain those who have so long and valiently sustained 
I themselves, when monarchs abroad do it, even for 
I Mussulmcn, rebels, and democrats? Shall they do 
it for these more distant, and we not for our nearest 
neighbor and kin.' Shall they, whose trade has 
l)ccn fighting, interfere efficiently for peace in aid of 
a just struggle, and we who profess peace, and to 
be the disciples of the Prince of Peace, not lift afin- 
gei- to restore it,' 

Have we lost our sympathies, our humanity, our 



25 



■xeligion, and^neither incline nor dave to do our duty, 
from fear of 'envious censure? 

Hpw much did considerations like some of these 
rally all Europe to band together in driving Napo 
leon to Elba and St. Helena, and thus restore peace, 
and order, and prosperity, to the desolated cities and 
iields of most of Christendom! These are not war 
measures, but peace measures. Nations, like indi- 
viduals, are often to be blessed if peacemakers — and 
that, not only by the use of arguments and entrea- 
ties, but force, if required. Both should thus inter- 
pose, if death, or ruin, or serious injury, is likely to 
happen to others, as well as themselves, by a con- 
tinuance of hostilities — as the rights of peace are 
paramount to those of war, and such interposition 
js the more quickly to restore commerce and public 
tranquillity. This suppression of further conflicts 
is proper between parties who either do not use 
proper means for ending them seasonably, or who 
outrage the laws of civilization in their mode of 
warfare. The object of such interference is speedier 
and surer repose to the world. It deserves encour- 
agement from the friends of peace and sound mor- 
als, as well as of improving industry and free trade. 
It is philanthropy, rather than selfish ae:o:i-andize- 

and merits applai 
lions witnessed on this occasion against those who 
are anxious, by the ratification of this treaty, to stop 
the further eflusion of human blood, the waste of 
money, and obstructions to agriculture and com- 
merce too long growing out of the past ruinous rela- 1 tVkV'pos^ses.sion to the river Ptdido'; as there was an 



cautions tcpyevcnt the catastrophe, as is now pro- 
posed, for t\at and other reasons, by a peaceful and 
voluntary jarchase of the territory, but can, if we- 
please, lawfi'ly interpose and aid the party which 
is just in its (Torts for self-government, by making 
with it allianes or a union of territory, institu- 
tions, and ex<?i'ions. 

Hence, in 1 ;;ent's Commentaries, p. 22, while he 
justly speaks ;i;ainst the interference of one nation 
to change the gcvernment of another, at the same 
time he says: ^'Rery nation has an undoubted right to 
provide for its owi safety, and to take due precaution 
against distant, as cell as impending danger.^'' 

A memorable > ,se occurred in 1810, showing 
under what degree (f danger and apprehension so 
careful a man as M.. Madison felt justified to seize 
on a neighboring tnritory in possession of Spain, 
and without an act dl Congress. 

In the National Intflligencer, December 28, 1810, 
a letter from New Oriians speaks to this effect, of 
the territory east from jJew Orleans to the Perdido: 

"The country, at least as ar as the Perdido, oiiglit to be 

taken possession of by the Uuted States; and it there should 

be the most distant probabilty of East Florida falling into 

hands of any European powerwhatever, we should, without 

- J . - , 1 .1 1 J ■ hesitation, iix our standards a St. Augustine and Teusacola. 

ment; and merits applause, rather than the denuncia- rpj^^, ,„.ovi„ce of itself is of Utle value, but it is one of the 

keys to the Mississiiii>i. Powei placed there will control the 



commi;rce of the Western WorU.'" 

And in the presidential anessage of December, 
1810, Mr. Matiison aimountes his movements to 



tions between Mexico and Texas 

Finally, let it not be forgotten that it is our duty 
to take this peaceful and voluntary cession, even if 
a risk of war ensues, provided that we ourselves 
are thereby likely to escape from serious injury 
through foreign influences. Much more can those 
vindicate it who believe it necessary to actual self- 
preservation, or tiie security of the institutions, prop- 



unadjusted claim, and a revo'ution, and we could 
hold till an arrangment was made with Spain. 

Spain had been left in posses:;ion till the claim to 
it by us was settled by negotialicn; but her power 
had been resisted by insurgents, and subverted; and 
Madison ordered out troops and took possession of 
it without waiting for any new lav by Congress; 
. . _ because a situation was '■'■produced, ciposijig the coim- 

crty, and commerce, of any portion of that great ^ ,„ ulterior events which might essentially a^ect the 
republic, one and indivisible, whose ^'domestic Iran- ,.-^j,fg .^^d welfare of the Union.'' 



rights I 

If force was opposed to us, the United States 
troops were instructed to repel it, except from emy 
place still in Spanish occupation. ^( Int. December 
5, 1810.) 

In his message, he says Congress v/ill make 
whatever provision may be due to the essential 



^uilliiy'''' and welfare the constitution itself was made 
in part to guaranty. 

Thus, while France subdues Algiers, or seizes 
on islands in the Pacific, and Mhile England invades 
China, and India, and Africa, we look on without 
intermeddling, except by uniting in that public opin- 
ion and public judgment of the rest on\ut cmVizcd ^.j^jli^^^ interests of the people, thus 
world, which finds so much to condemn m some of brought into the bosom of the American family." 
these aggrandizing and violent measur< s. But let He thought a crisis had arrived ''endoingering the 
these foreign powers, in their restless ai,i!:.ition, ap- tranquillity and security of our adjoining territories,''' 
proach Cuba on the south, or Texas on the west, ^.c._(See his proclamation.) 

and our own hearths and altars become endan-crcd; ; j„ 3 stj^^g Papers, p. 394-9, is Mr. Madison's 
and the pervading instinct of self-preservation, no ) „^^^ ^^^ ,g, ^j ^j ^j^g igtters us to that part 

less than interest, will, at times, require us to art. I ^f -VYpg^ Florida. 

In such case, if need be, we must take more effica- 1 From the whole it appears, that by force we occu- ' 
cioiM measures than to talk. We must even arm, ^^^ ^^^^^ to Perdido, not because it was claimed by 
rather than have powder magazines of all kinds ; „g ^ut because the Spanish authority had been 
placed around our frontiers, and the safety of prop- Ug^b^.gi.tgd ^y ^ revolutionary proceeding, and the 
erty, revenue, and all the commerce of the mighty ] contingency of the country being thrown in.to for- 
West jeopiu-ded. The precautions taken and the [ ^^^^ ^^^jg^ h^d forced itself into view." 



resistance made on our part, in such a case, cannot 
justly be called intermeddling in the internal conflicts 
of parties in another government. Nor is it a strug- 
gle, like many in centuries past, to preserve the old 
balance of power, and check the undue enlargement 
of a neighbor, which remotely, and in time, might 
prove injurious; but it is to repel danger to our- 
selves, quite certain, if not immediate; and that from 
a quarter already hemming us in and round at every 
point of the compass. We can, in such cases, on. 
sound principles of national law, not only take pre- icent to us, and there exists in it a state of misrule and d"i8 



A few of Mr. Clay's remarks on that occasion 
were so intrepid in spirit, and showed so well the 
dauntless energy of him and his then republican 
friends, towards all opposition, whether from abroad 
or at home, that they deserve special remembrance. 
It was such conduct then, and in 1811, 1818, and; 
1820, on kindred topics,, that paved the path on 
which he has since walked to such wide fame: 

"1 have no hesitation in saying, that if ai parent country . 
will not or cannot maintain its authority in a colony adja- , 



26 



order, menacing our peace— and if, moreover, sucbfcolony 
by passing into the hands of any other power, yould be 
come dangerous to the integrity of the Union, andmanifest- 
ly tend to the subversion of our laws— we hJe aright, 
upon eternal principles of self-preservation, to /y hold of 
it. This principle alone, independent of any /tie, would 
warrant our occupation of West Florida. 

"We are told of the vengeance of resuscita/d Spain. If 
Spain, under any modification of her governrafet, choose to 
make war upon us for the act under considafetion, the na- 
tion, I have no doubt, will be willing to meet^e war. But I r^ken in rertain fVpntT ' Vo'^'r^ti'pT^'"""'^// "X 
the gentleman reminds us that Great BriXi, the ally of |„",'" %^^^^^ .e%ents.—(i btate Papers, 544 p.) 

"— ■ her connectio/ with Spain, to : ^i*^.^'*''?= 1 he united States "have been persuaded 

measure 
5 justifying an appeal to/rms. Sir, is the 
time never to arrive, when we mav manaae our own aftairs 

ithout the fear of insulting his Britanni? Majesty ? Is the 
rod ot| Biitish power to be forever s^pended ov 



Again, November 2, 1811, he saya we had 
claims for spol'ations, &c., on Spain, long unsatis- 
fied; looked to East Florida, as means near for in- 
demnity; and could not allow them to go out 
of our reach, ^'■vnlhoul injustice and dishonor to our- 
selves, and no othei- power could take East Flwida, but 
from hostile views to us. Henee the act of Con- 
gress was passed, empowering possession to be 



Spain, may be obliged, by 

take part with her agains. us, and to consi/er th: 

of the President 



persuaO 
that remissness on their part might inrite the dattger, if 
it had not already done so, when it is much their 
interest and desire to prevent it, (544 p.) 

. _ ._ .._ „ Much more of detail on this can be seen in the 

heads? Does Congress put on an embffgo to shelter our volumes referred to, and our own files, as well as 
sited .nnf^''''''^^^^^'"'' ^^"^ piraticJdepredations com- in the National Intelligencer of June 20th, 1811. 
mitted upon it on the ocean, we are inmediately warned a,,j ;♦ • „„* ti i . ° i i i • • j ' '^^,^'- 

Of the indignation of oftended England Is a law of non- T ^ ^'^^^ remarkable coincidence, that 

intercourse proi)osed, the whole na/y of the haughty t"^ "'"St appearance of some of these documents 
mistress of the seas is made to thun(frin our ears. l)oes I was then, as now, by an unlicensed publication of 
respondence with a them in a newspaper in Connecticut, prol)ably from 



the President refuse to continue a (6rrespondence witl 
miiiister who violates the decorum /elonging to his diplo- 
matic character. l)y giving and dtJIJirately repeating an 
affront to the whole nation, wewie instantlv menaced 
■with the chastisement which Engljih pride will 'not fail to 

J^r'ma^S^^by^S^V^^^^.^r^^'^^ P"bli<^ -t'^-^f^ were wantonly disregar 
selves, tliis phantom incessantly iursues us. 

"I am not, sir, in favor of ch'eishing the passion of con- 
quest. But I must be permitte/ to conclude by declaring 
my hope to see, ere long, the nAv United States (if you will 
allow me the expression) emb«cing not only<lie old thir- 
teen States, Imt the entire coyhtry east of the Mississippi, 
including East Florida, and §6me of the Territories to thi 
north of us 

There i 



another illi/stration on that very fron- 



the confidential copy of some senator, with a view 
to make political capital against Mr. Madison, and 
by \yhich the Intelligencer justly remarked, "the 
"■■''■" •"■'— -sts were wantonly disregarded." These 
cases are all those where force was used or contem- 
plated, and urging excuses for it. But, in that 
of Texas, we have used no force, and propose to 
use none, unless unjustly attacked; and will not the 
reasons already recapitulated excuse defence, when 
attacked, if they tl^en excused force in the first in- 
stance.' 



^ In 1820, it was again recommended by President 

tier as to what kind M danger to our property j Monroe, the Secretary of State being Mr. Adams, 
must exist, in order to /justify forcible interposition, I to pass a law to take possession of the Floridas, 
and from which it /an readily be infjprred how i notwithstanding the treaty ceding them had not been 
much less or remote tfanger would make it our duty j ratified. Some of the reasons urged in the public 
to mterioo.^o by a peaceful purchase, even if some I prints were, the necessity of them for safety to the 
risk of unjust retaj/ation against us should accom- j southern States, for better protection against insid- 
pany the transacti0n. In the Hou.se of Representa- ious interference from abroad, and the contempt as 
tiues, on the 8th (if January, 1811, in secret session, well as injustice attached thereto the Spanish 
a resolution was passed, authorizing the President, power. — (Niles's Register for 20lh December, 1820, 
in either of two, fevents, to take possession of the } and 18th March.) 

Floridas— (2 Executive Journal, pages 180, 181.) : Let it not be said, as diflfering from the present 
The steps wei* adopted from the "intimate relation | case, that we then had claims against Spain unset- 
of the territory" to the United States, with an eye ! tied, for we now have important ones against Mex- 
"fo their sccunty and tranquUlity" and consider- ' ico. 

ing the "peculiar situation of Spain and of her Amer- '. These may be considered by some as bold raea.s- 
ican provinces;" and it was resolved that we could i nres. They were recommended at least by bold 
not "witli indifference" "see it pass from the hands men— men who knew their rights and always dared 
^l^P^^^^ ^^^0 those of any othei- foreign poxoer.'" — (Paoe i to maintain them, however menaced at home or 
i<5.) See Mr. Madison's message recommending abroad. They only looked for the path of duty, and, 
the steps, though it was then denounced by a few I when found, moved forward in it, swerving neither 
of his political opponents as "■robbery and ivar," j to the right nor left, from attempted intimidation or 
while others vindicated it on high principles of na- i foreign iiatrigue. As an example for us on this oc- 
tional law. — (National Intelligencer, 5lh January, ! casion, let us look to the practical exposition of their 



1811.) (Annexed A and B, are the whole mes- 



'"fh 



principles m 



1803, as well as in the cases of 1810, 



report, aiid declaration.) j 1811, and 1820, just referred to. 

7he British Minister then protested, and intimated i The apprehension of any difficulty with Spain, who 
that we acted "from ambitious motives,'' or by a desire I remonstrated against our right to purchase Louisiana, 
of foreign conquest and territorial aggrandisement. | did not deter our patriot fathers in 1803 from accom- 
How exactly does the senator from Massachusetts j plishing that ever memorable duty, and glorious act 
jnow tread in the footsteps of the British Minister, I of policy; and as little did the apprehension of a seiz- 
Mr. Foster urged further, that the United States, im- ure of it by England, in her war with France, then 
der this pretex of a claim, "cannot expect to avoid the \ breaking out, alarm them from their purpose. Much 
reproach which mustfolloio the ungenerous and unpro- less should such fears swerve us from the still higher 
yoked seizure of a foreign colony, while the parent State and more numerous obligations that urge us onward 
is engaged in a noble contest for independence," at to a peaceful acquisition, not made in the spirit of ag- 
liome, &c. — (2 State Papers, 543.) gi-andizement, but, beside other good motives, to 

Mr. Monroe replied to Foster, July 8, 1811, (543,) restore what was our own near half a century ago, 
and not admitting the right of England to interfere, and what, by Jefferson and Madison, with the 
repels the motives imputed, though too common whole Congress and country, except a small disaf- 
abraad. | fitted party, was vindicated as a purchase just and 



27 



necessary for national security and national pros- 
perity. 

On what ground can any part of the European 
world presume to interfere with our amicable com- 
pacts with neighboring States on this continent? 
Aiid on what just ground are we to be deterred from 
what is right, honorable, and peaceful in managing 
our own affairs, because displeasure happens to be 
expressed at it by Mrs. Grundy or Lord Brougham, 
•or Daniel O'Connell, or Lord Aberdeen? What if 
the exhortation of one of them came to us last even- 
ing across the Atlantic, trying to rally the whole 
British empire to interfere at once to 'fa-event the an- 
nexation oj Texas? 

England forgets that she recognised our independ- 
ence more that half a century ago; and one would 
think that it was nearly time now for her oligarchy 
to refrain from intermeddling in our affairs. She is 
in an admirable position to denounce our thirst for ac- 
quiring territory, when she has added encroachment 
to encroachment till her forts and factories encircle 
the whole globe almost as closely as her light-houses 
do her coast. 

As to such tirades, and the tlireatened scorn or 
censure of the world at large on us for the transac- 
tion, I cannot refrain from recalling to your minds 
the eloquent sentiments uttered by Mr. Clay in 1820, 
* when the recognition of the South American prov- 

inrp« was ""dp'- ^o^^'dC'-tJ"", e"'l v^'i'^" 'l^" •">- 

pro"(hesof tiansjt'antiL ii\aU\ eic h Id up ui teiio- 
■)em igainstus 



othti 
act( 
men 



unl 



e^-n i \ 1 1 1 

■we do n not w e > or \ I 

ibh Tunistf to till I c cnt 
ister abroad lu \\ aa i hai 
c-\ ol ) r ^o\ I nt tow 

'ill n A.dams i c ii 1 i i li t 

hi t irian anj thniij or notlunij "We look 

to J < ail ^oiiraj tind our mini'.tu in 

til till (.001 of tli( I oi't Giiirlb u 1 

the n \ nj 1 I 1 a (iiiostn ro« purclii nc; htciaiu 
' (or tliia coiintiv '^)ur in"; itution? said Mr ( now mak( 
us fric, lut l._w 1„..^ .'.l.,.ll .\e c„..t.,.„..so..f ,.^,n„^ia o^r 
opinions on tl.osc of Europe? Let us break these com- 
mercial and political fetters: let us no longer watch the nod 
of any European politicinii; let us become real and true 
Americans, and place ourselves at the head of the American 
system " 

Even two years earlier, in a speech of the 24th of 
March, 1818, he exhorted us to make the lead in fa- 
vor of the revolted and oppressed provinces of Spain, 
in "defiimce of the divine right of kings to rule." If 
we erred, it was better to err on the side of human 
liberty. He was "not a propagandist," but had 
sympathy for such a people, and would recognise 
them, and act further, "as circumstances and interest 
require. — (1vol. of Speeches, 85 p.) If we were 
ourselves independent, we ought to be "guided by 
American policy," andJ"obey the laws of the system 
of the new world." — (88 p.) 

In doing this, as 1 have recently remarked on 
another occasion, if war be threatened, or actually 
comes, it will be gratifying to reflect that it comes 
wrongfully, and might come so in any other difficul- 
ty — even for the mere acknowledgment of Texian 
independence, as was menaced by Spain in a Uke 
case, and by Santa Anna himself for still shghter 



reason. But whatever nation, heeding threats 
or expmire to unjust war, is tempted by the dread 
of them turn as'ide from the path of duty, human- 
ity, and jonor, is itself unfit to exercise independest 
powers, .lid should be reannexed to her ancient 
masters. 

So far lorn this shrinking having marked our 
course, evei under more threatening dangers in 
1810, 1811, md 1820, we went still farther in 1823 
than before; , e avowed a determination to interpose 
ourselves, if a.y nev.'' foreign power should presume 
only to colonic anywhere on this continent, and 
hence much mcc, if in Cuba or Te.^as, in our near 
neighborhood; l-cause, more tlian ten years previ- 
ous, it had been hreseen and stated, that if a new 
foreign ] 'ower shoild take possession of Cuba, the 
whole Mifsisr-ipi'.; valley will be at her mercy. — 
(Nat. Int., Sill .luly 1811.) 

We uiiitL-d in the Oongress of Panama, even before 
Mexican indcpendcice had been acknowledged by 
a single European pover; one object of which was, 

I "firmly establishing tie indejiendence of each of the 

I American republic^;." — ^'Canaz Letter, 96, Appendix, 

j 4th Blount.) 

I Another object was to concert measures to pre- 
vent Europe from colonizing further in any part of 
tlie American continent — (Saloza to Ciav, Nov. 
2, 1835, p. 92, Appendix.) 

\-d this resicd in pari on the idea that such a 
((1 iii-'Tt in woukl endange- the independence and 
^ii( \ o ill the new republi's. 

In 1825 under Mr. Adan.s's administration, Mr. 
C'lv I'' S°cre'ary of State, .s=eras to have been au- 
thonzed to =!tate officially, not only that "we cannot 
1 low I ti insfer of the island C^uba) to any Euro- 
pi ai jiowti "but that the Mexif.ais have been dissua- 
ded not n attack Cuba in the war witli S|>ain, lest 
it m ght Ic id to consequences davigerous to the do- 
mc^tit ti 111 {Liilhty of the South.— (Clay to Middle- 
nn 2') h December, 1825, Blount's Register, 91.) 

It t'ciefore not only became a common object 
1 1 tl 1 continent to prevent new foreign settlements 
m t iiitluc ices here, but we labored to enlist friendly 
powtis in Ilurope to sanction it, and succeeded in 
com nicirg England that it was her duty, as well as 
oiu--, to pie\ ent any nation abroad from aiding Spain 
to eionqueiher revolted provinces. — (2 Wheaton, 
81 ^9 ) 

Bui, Bu far from this countenancing any force 
or intrigues from abroad, to control any of 
the new republics here, it aimed in principle at 
the defeat of such attempts, as well as of ordina- 
ry colonization. It tries to secure to all America 

i self-government, free either from European diploma- 
cy or European arms. If Texas, or any other re- 
public, chooses to cede apart or all her territory, and 
unite with other sister States in government, what 
right has Great Britain or France to interpose, more 
than we have with the voluntary union of Ireland 
with England? or the voluntary separation of Bel- 
gium from Holland? 

A war in Europe may arise from the change of 
masters over a single city or province, but it is a 
war in her own brotherliood or system; and neither 
connects itself with changes in Asia, though of do- 
minion there over empires, nor recognises American 
interferences in Europe or Asia more than we admit 
of European ones here. Mr. Madison says, Europe 
has, in many respects, a system of policy and in- 
terests, almost peculiarly her own, and disconnected 
from other quarters ot the globe. The danger of 
foreign iiiterference, and of collisions with otiier na- 



28 



tions than Mexico, is really more iinminent, / we i 
poetpone annexation, than if we complete ityOrth 
with. In this last case, the door is shut toEuro 
pean tactics. Threats, jealousies, or fa- 
trigues and appliances of all kinds, will be suj^i'seded 
and future struggles or blood to secure ourifclves on 
that frontier, worse than anything now /robable, 
will all be obviated. 

In closing these remarks on officious i/terfcrence 
from abroad, and manufactured puMc opinion 
abroad, 1 say, unhesitatingly, that if fc are to be 
calumniated for exercising a consti/uional right 
to purchase, treat, and unite, with a/^ independent 
nation, in procuring again an empir^n size, which 
•we once owned, and is occupied by oii" own brethren; i 
for doing this by peaceful negotia^n, and for mu- 
tual benefits, rather than by rapacity or fraud: and 
for exposing ourselves to no just /ause of war, but, 
on the contrary, terminating a predatory and bar- 
barous contest in behalf of liben/ independence, re- 
ligious freedom, the Anglo-Sixon race, and the 
progress of humanity and^civrtzation, — I, for one, 
am ready to appear at the b/r of public opinion; 
and stand prepared to abide ^le calm judgment of 
both cotemporaries and postef-ity. ' 

Some senators have deemea it a duty not to take 
this cession on account of oar relations witli Mexi- 
co, and the fear which ougl^ to be entertained of her 
■vengeance. But it is a mistake to suppose that, by 
this cession, if our former/positions have been main- 
tained, we thus violate i\4. solemnity of our treaties 
■with Mexieo. It is no -violation of them to consider 
the territory of TexasAs not Mexican, but as be- 
longing to another poWer— to Texas herself So 
says the late Secretary/of State, and so said, in 1838, 
our treaty of limits yith Texas. Even if Mexico 
chooses to involve us'in war on that account, we are 
not guilty of such /a violation any more than we 
■were by our quasi (War with France in 1798, and our 
Teal war with England in 1812; as we ihen had 
solemn treaties of peace with both of those powers 
existing, as sacr/^d and in full force as now with 
Mexico. ' 

It is begging the question to call our conduct on 
any of these questions a violation of our treaty 
obligations. 

As little should we be terrified from duty by the 
apprehension of Mexican power, when e'xercisfed 
unjustly; though almost every speech on the other 
side begins and ends with war — not only threatened, 
but war approaching — -vt-ar almost in our midst. 
But we should fear a neglect of duty to our own 
country and Texas much more than the prmcess and 
sutcess of Mexico, which have been so exaggerated, 
while, in truth, so lame and impotent as, during six 
■years past, to kill a few women by Indians and con- 
victs, and capture one judge and two or three trav- 
elling editors of newspapers, but not retain a single 
foot of land or a single fort. And, though some of 
the gentlemen who engaged in this debate seemed 
almost to see merchants fleeing, property seques- 
trated, commerce plundered on the ocean, cities 
sacked, and Santa Anna ready to plant t^as he once 
threatened) the Mexican standard over our heads on 
the dome of our Capitol; yet, unfortunately, that 
liero has heretofore so misbehaved in peace as to 
have driven most of our traders already from his 
dominions, and to have neither power to come here 
by water, except in borrowed vessels, nor disposi- 
tion to march eastward again by land, over the ter- 
ritory near the field of San Jacinto. 

How long it would take Mexico to reconquer 



Te.^as when allied with us, after the attiempts so- 
vain and so long on her unallied, it is not very difK- 
cult to conlpute; and I think the nerves of our wives 
and daughters, and the cradles of our infants, may ' 
be kept tolerably calm under this new panic. On 
the contrary, Mexico has every inducement to pur- 
sue a policy entirely different, and more worthy her 
natural position. 

She has a noble opportunity, on this occasion, to 
withdravj- from her further claims -with dignity, and 
honor, and courtesy. It is not necessary that she 
should formally admit what has so long seemed appa- 
rent — her inability to reconquer Texas; but merely 
acquiesce in the independence of a territory, 
whose people were mostly invited there from the 
United States by new colonization laws, in order to 
aid her in defence against Indian aggressions, whose 
education, habits, and religion, do not accord with 
hers, and are unsuited to harmonize under her sys- 
tem; and, as before fully shown, have rightfully re- 
sisted it: and in fine, whose valor and success have 
excited the sympathies and confidence of most of the 
world. For the sake of meeting the wishes of the 
great powers of that world, and restoring quiet to 
its commerce, as well as peace, what is there derog- 
atory in saying she will no longer stand up against 
the public opinion of Christendom? Spain having 
done the same by Mexico, and England by us, no 
feeling of pride is injured, nor the slightest humili- ' 
ation involved, while at last she may win some 
glory by becoming the pacificator of much of the 
new contujent. 

Let us not, then, cling to this twig, or dwell 
no that small flaw— hang a doubt on one loop, 
and an old )!rejudice on another. But group all , 
these strong incentives to action together — add the 
political force of one to the moral strength of the 
otlier, and the urgent national interests in future, as 
well as now, so deeply involved to the whole, and 
then weigh them en masse; and if they do not 
show a heavy preponderance of duty on us t'i take 
the cession immediately, I must confess my inability 
to weigh properly either evidence or principles. 

It is, however, well known that a portion of this 
body deem our right to acquire, and the right of 
Texas to cede, clear; and our duty, at some time, to 
carry the measure into eifect equally clear; and yet 
entertain doubts whether the present moment is 
most suitable for that purpose. To such I would, in 
conclusion, submit a few suggestions. 

The annexation of Texas has been deemed desira- 
ble now by our executive, as well as the govern- 
ment of Texas; and a treaty has been finished to that 
effect, to be ratified within six months. Without 
strong reasons, what has been duly commenced, as 
of national magnitude, should be completed. 

Again: Texas has been invited to institute pro- 
ceedings, and close the treaty; and without strong 
reasons she ought not, in this stage of the business, 
to be disappointed and repudiated. 

The reasons acting on the executives of botfi 
countries — the proper organs to commence such 
measures — have been sufficient and urgent, and re- ■ 
quiring, in their view, innnediate annexation. It is 
well known, also, that many of the objections 
hitherto prevailing as to the stability and ripeness 
of Texian independence, and as to the probability of 
reconquest by Mexico, have been much weakened, 
if not entirely removed. Public opinion, too, has 
had more time to be developed, and has been fully 
disclosed in favor of annexation now, by public 
meetings and reBolutions, by memorials and cor- 



29 



of t e United Slates. .whi?h she inherits from herlundred 
of tie southern States, will always tend to umte her with 
Orea Britain." ' 

Aier detailing the advantages of a close al- 
lianci between Texas and Great Britain, theRevibw 
adds: 

"The bonds of ancient kindred may thu.s be knit, with 
fresh sti-ngth; and the independence of Texas create only 
a wider Uftusion of the British race and Britibh sym- 
pathies."' 

After giing over the inducements existing both i« 
Texas anJ in the United States, to the conclusion of 
a treaty, md remarking that the signature of it 
" need not surprise any one," the London Herald 
thus speciilaes: 

"Such a trestv would (unli-.'is the consent of Santa Anna 
thereto have I '■en pivviously obtained—a most unlikely 
eventl lead to aiupturo; if nut to hostilities, between the 
United States aid Mexico, and evt-n if it did not produce 
immedintp war, vnnld most certainly foster the 'mission* 
to oveirun ?.:>xi.o which even now has possession of a 
large pioportion ii the Anglo-Americans. In a quarrel 
arising iVoni .such acause, England and France would have: 
a right to interfere, i only because annexation affected theic 
aciiuired interests ii Texas; it is the policy of both coun- 
tries to support Me>ico as a counterpoise to the United 
States; and England *as an especial ground for the preser- 
vation of Texian indejcndence in its influence on Canada.'* 
Suppose that Mr. Jefferson had listeiied to delay 
in the purchase of Livuisiana for only a single month, 
the war being renewed between England and 
France, would have made it a prey to British su- 
periority at sea; and al the evils now deprecated as 
to the security of the -.ornmerce and cities of the 
Mississippi, and the t'omestic tranquillity of the 
South would have been eirlier felt and earlier agitated 
the whole Union.— (See Marbois History of Lou- 
isiana.) 

What is the bearing of tie new correspondence on 
this subject.' It is mostsigiificant. It discloses the 
foct that i Texas deems a new and formidable inva- 
sion from Mexico, when she ^ears of this treaty, to 
be so probable as not to be villing to enter upon 
making it without assurances of aid from us, if the 
exigency occurs while the negotiations are pending. 
So much is certain^ that if wt reject the treaty 
son's Bay company; and last, but not least, Texas : or delay it, and the invasion comes, Texas must be 
on the southwest, forced almost insanely by us into satisfied that no just aid can cmstitutionally be 
her influences and protection, if not close alliance. | granted by us. What, then, must be her next re- 
Even in this debate, some senators [Mr. Choate] i source.? Will it be to take the field and wad© 
have considered the reconquest of Texas by her ; through carnage, expense and conflagration, to> 
old oppressors as probable, unless annexation to us repel it victoriously alone, as she doubtless may, ac- 
speedily takes place, and yet, refuse that annexation, ; cording to the experienced judgment of the senator 
and complacently foretell that there is another mode j from Missouri? Certainly, rather than submit to 
escaping subjugation by accepting British aid, and, I 
' ' ' "ritish abolition condi- 



respondence, infinitely more decisive and long than 
when it -was negotiated for ua 1825 or 1829, or when 
it was offered in 1837. A rejection now is likely, 
also, to be construed as if casting dishonor on Texas, 
after inviting her action and concurrence in the ces- 
sion and proceedings so far. 

We have been trying to accomplish the reannexa- 
tion for more than twenty years; and now, when 
peaceably within our grasp, can it be wisdom to let 
it escape, for reasons of form or ceremony, or party.' 
If it be a mere question of time, as some urge, then 
-why not ^eize time by the forelock.' Why, in the 
language of the late national convention, not do it 
"as soon as practicable.'" Delays, also, are danger- 
ous, lest offence be taken on the other side, and the 
proposition be never resumed. So a delay here 
may lead to alliances and guaranties elsewhere, 
though not probably to reunion in government 
with a monarchy. Reannexation may be thus 
defeated long, if not forever, as well as a danger- 
ous foreign iiMluence planted on our borders, 
which will not only peril our domestic institutions 
and property, as the Texian constitution is open to 
change on all subjects, but rob us of the control of 
the Gulf of Mexico, and girdle us around from 
New Brunswick to the Sabine, in a more iron and 
deadly gripe than that contemplated by France be- 
fore our revolution. 

I say nothing here on the disclaimers of England 
as to abolition designs with us, when she has 
avowed them as to the whole world^ias en- 
couraged them in Brazil and Texas, if not on the 
La Platte — has sheltered our slave criminals in her 
provinces and islands; but I do say that our coun- 
try, and our whole country, cannot see with indif- 
ference the wall she is closing up around 
us. Cuba at her mercy on the South whenever 
war approaches, the Gibraltar of the Gulf of 
Mexico — the Bahamas on the East, bristling with 
cannon — Halifax, duebec, and Maiden, with muni- 
tions and soldiery, on the Northeast and North — 
the Rocky mountains on the West barricaded, and 
the mouth of the Columbia fortified by her Hud 



presume, of course, with it, 
tions, a-s well as British control. Beside these indi- 
cations of the evils likely to result from delay, and 
beside the readiness of Mexico to continue her per- 
severing efforts to thwart us in the object of annex- 
ation, by any co-operation with England, we have 
already had a foretaste since 1837 of the gratifica- 
tion felt in the British public at our shortsightedness 
in not uniting earlier with Texas, and the sanguine 
hopes of their future influence there, which have 
thus been excited. 
The Edinburgh Review of 1841 says: 
"The United States, in refusing to admit Texas into their 
confederation, have rejected an ofl'tr, which in all probabiliy 
will never again be made to them; and Texas becoming, a.? 
years pass by, more and more attached to its own institu- 
tions, its own distinct policy, and its own national policy, 
and its own national character, will speedily regard the 
United States with some of those feelings of jealousy, 
which nations always learn to entertain towards their 
nearest and most powerful neighbors. The commercial in- 
..terests of Texas, and the antipathy to the northern portion 



Mexican reconquest, and Mexican chains; but cer- 
tainly not, if she can avert both the carnage and 
the chains,; with honor, by an arrangement with 
England or France, after making the first offer to 
us, and experiencing a humiliating refusal. In a 
single month, after such refusal or delay, it will 
be wise and natural for her to guard against new- 
con tingencies, though not to become an integral 
part of the British' or French monarchies, and aban- 
don her republican institutions and independence; 
but to receive the guaranty of one of them against 
Mexican oppression. Of course, it would be ore 
such terms as are honorable and acceptable to both 
parties; and leave no motive for renewed negotia- 
tions with us on such terms as will sectire life ini 
property, restore peace to her industry and com- 
merce, grow cotton for England independent of 
us — a most vital object to her — improve the 
finances of Texas, and fill up her rich domain, not 
by us and ours, and to our benefit and glory, but 
with millions from other quarters of the wofWj wh(> 



30 



liave so long been repulsed by her liitherto ffiiba 
rassed and unsettled relations. If, then, ^rnore 
intimate union is ever to take place with 
my solemn conviction that "now's the (fy and 
now's the hour." 

These apprehensions are .so far from Ifeing vi- 
sionary, that numerous similar arrangehenls by 
more powerful States, with youthful M small 
republics, have occurred and continued fo* centuries. 
How striking in the case of the Hansetowns, and 
other free cities of Germany? How m/nieiitous, at 
times, in that of the Swiss canton.s? m mi of Geneva? 
Genoa? How desirable to us once, fhen the pro- 
tection and assistance of France /t-ere obtained 
under certain mutual guaranties, bit without our 
becoming a part of France, or a/dependency, or 
ever feeling disposed, however riuch pressed, to 
renew our governmental relation with England, 
though attached to her by origin, education and 
religion, almost as strongly as tje people of Texas 
can be to us. ' 

The correspondence before u^ published as well 
as unpublished, proves that th^e gloomy apprehen- 
sions, if thepresent golden momnt be not seized, are 
likely soon to be realized. I>'ot so much, I admit, 
by rapacity, as by intrigue tnd interest elsewhere, 
(as evinced by Mr. Huskiain in debate, as long 
ago as 1830,) and thus to pl^ce in the hands of an- 
other foreign and rival poiver — a possession more 
dangerous to all our western as well as southern in- 
terests and commerce tJan Cuba herself— Cuba, 
which, for twenty years Have been publicly tabooed 
by our Presidents and secretaries from all foreign in- 
terference. If we po.stpone at all, then, let me ask 
to what timer to what )th of July are we to wait 
for the occupation of liiis as of the northeastern ter- 
ritory since lost? Our people are as acquisitive in 
their propensities, i.n& especially about lands, as 
most others. Hen<fe, when peaceful restorations of 
what was once our own, and from its great value 
and importance should never have been parted 
with, are offered, they would hardly justify that 
procrastination which may again be the thief to rob 
ihem of tlie prize. 

The instincts of a great people are also seldom 
■wrong; and (hose of ours have long run in the 
channel of syra path y for the down-trodden — espe- 
cially their own relatives and neighbors — attach- 
ment to those daring to be free, and knowing what 
confidence, courage, and strength, were h spired into 
our fathers in their struggle for independence by the 
kindness and approbation of others, they will al- 
ways be true to those instincts, and as far as jus- 
tice, honor, and right, may warrant; which tliey are 
believed to do here — immediate annexation, they 
will march fearlessly up to the line of duty. 

If we look further, the dominion of the whole 
American continent will be seen to be at stake. 
Shall it rest in America, or in a small island on the 
coast of Europe? Shall it be in a republic, or a 
monarchy? In us and our posterity, or in our op- 
pressor and rival: 

The commerce of America — the great surplus 
commerce of both world.s, — on what does it chiefly 
depend? and where and whence shall it flow? Un- 
der whose guidance? Whose protection? Look into 
these matter.s as connected with this question, and 
decide whether we shall, in truth, be independent in 
substance, or only in form? Exhibiting self-confi- 
tl^nce, liberty, and defiance, somewhere else than on 



our lins; or stoop m action to temporize, vacillate, 
and delay, if not succumb to other powers? 

APFENDIX. . 
A. 

Message 1810: 

"Taking into view the tenor of these several commuHica- 
tion?, the posture of things with wluch they are connected, 
the intimate relation of the country adjoining the United 
States, eastward of the river Perdido, to their security and 
tranquillity, and the peculiar interest they otherwise have in 
its destiny, 1 recominend to the consideration of Congress the 
reasonableness of a declaration that the United States could 
not see, without serious inquietude, any part of a neighbor- 
ing territory, in which they have, in difterent respects, so 
deep and so just a concern, pass from the hands of Spain 
into those of any other foreign power. 

•I recommend to their consideration, also, the expediency 
of authorising the executive to take temporary possession 
of any part or parts of the said territory, in pursuance of ar- 
rangements which may be desired by the Spanish author- 
ities; and for making provision for the government of the 
same, during such possession. 

"The wisdom of Congress will, at the same time, determine 
how far it may be expedient to provide for the event of a 
subversion of the Spanish authorities within the territories 
in question, and an apprehended occupancy thereof by any 
foreign power'— (2 Secret Jour., 180 p., .Madison's Mes- 
sage.) 



Resolution, January 8, 1811, House of Repre- 
sentatives in secret session: 

"Taking into view the present state of the world, the pe- 
culiar situation of Spain and of her American provinces, and 
the intimate relations of the territory eastward of the river 
Perdido, arjjining the United States, to their security and 
tranquillity, therefore 

••Resolved, iscc, We cannot see with indifference any part of 
the Spanish provinces, adjoining the said states eastward of 
the river Perdido, pass from the'hands of Si)ain into those of 
any foreign power." 



Declaration reported by a committee — in the Sen- 
ate in 1811: 

"The United States of America, in Congress assembled, 
having had their attention imperiously drawn to the present 
situation of the territory adjoining their southern l»rder, 
not included in the purchase of Louisiana, and considering 
the influence which the destiny of that territory may have 
on their security, tranquillity, and commerce," (claims of 
indemnity on Spain erased,) "declare, that they could not 
see with indifl'erence the said territory pass into the hand.s 
of any other foreign power, and that they feel themselves 
calledupon, by the peculiar circumstances of the existing 
crisis, to provide, under certain contingencies, for the tem- 
porary occupation of the said territory. Whilst they thus 
yield to what is demanded of them by their own safety, they 
further declare that the said territory, in their hands, shall 
remain subject to future arrangement between them and 
Sp;iin." 



Report of the committee in the Senate in 1811: 
"Strike out all the words after the word the," first men- 
tioned in the first line of the resolution, to the end thereof, 
and in lieu tliereof insert 'jieculiar situation of Spain, and of 
her American provinces; and considering the influence 
which the destiny of the territory adjoining the southern 
border of the United States may have upon their security, 
tranquillity, and commerce; therefore 

" 'Resolved by the Seiiatt and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled. That the 
United States, under the peculiar circumstances of the ex- 
isting crisis, cannot, without serious inquietude, see any 
part of the said territory pass into the hands of any foreign 
power; and that a due regard to their own safety compels 
them to provide, under certain contingencies, for the tem- 
porary occupation of the said territory; they, at the same 
time, declare, that the said territory shall, in their hands, 
remain sut ject to future negotiation '" 



#» 



